In our previous post, we looked at the situation regarding Fr. Albert Cutié, who has written a self-justifying book regarding the scandal he created by having an inappropriate romantic (and presumably sexual) relationship with a woman and, when this relationship was revealed through the press, abandoned his role as a Catholic priest, joined the Episcopalian church, and civilly married the woman, by whom he has subsequently fathered a child.

The previous post looked at the Catholic Church’s general discipline of celibacy (remaining unmarried) for the priests of the Latin Church that exists within it (the celibacy requirement operates differently in many of the Eastern Catholic churches also in union with the pope). In this post we will look at the options that were open to Fr. Cutie at different stages of events and the choices he made.

We will begin with the stage where he first began to be attracted to Ruhama Buni Canellis, the divorced woman with whom he eventually attempted civil marriage. What options did he have at this stage?

1) Just Say No.

This was the only morally legitimate option open to Fr. Cutie upon the onset of attraction to Buni Canellis. We do not know at this point in time (though his forthcoming book may reveal more about the matter) whether she first pursued him or he first pursued her or whether they simultaneously began pursuing each other, but Fr. Cutie had an obligation to neither make amorous advances toward her nor to respond to amorous advances on her part.

As part of the rite of ordination, Fr. Cutie had freely assumed the obligation to remain celibate (unmarried) and thus, via the virtue of chastity (behaving in a sexually appropriate manner) to remain continent (not have sex). This obligation is further canonically specified by Canon 277 §1 of the Code of Canon Law, which states:

Clerics are obliged to observe perfect and perpetual continence for the sake of the kingdom of heaven and therefore are bound to celibacy which is a special gift of God by which sacred ministers can adhere more easily to Christ with an undivided heart and are able to dedicate themselves more freely to the service of God and humanity.

Basic principles of moral theology also require that if one is not a potential, legitimate sexual partner (i.e., spouse) for another person, one also must not engage in behavior oriented toward generating romance, fostering sexual temptation, and raising hopes of a union with that person that one is not free to contract. Consequently, §2 of Canon 277 also specifies:

Clerics are to behave with due prudence towards persons whose company can endanger their obligation to observe continence or give rise to scandal among the faithful.

As was documented in part one of this series, Fr. Cutie was caught on film allowing Buni Canellis to amorously wrap her legs around him and also putting his own hand down Buni Canellis’ swimsuit to fondle her behind. Both of these actions were clear violations of his moral and canonical obligations, as discussed above.

While becoming ordained is not in every respect the same as becoming married, both involve the free assumption of a state of life that involves a sacred commitment regarding sexual matters. In the case of ordination, one makes a sacred commitment that one will not pursue sexual or romantic relationships with anyone, while in the case of matrimony one makes a sacred commitment that one will not pursue sexual or romantic relationships with anyone but one’s spouse. Fr. Cutie’s violation of this sacred commitment is thus analogous to a husband’s pursuit of a sexual or romantic relationship with someone who is not his wife. It counts as the violation of a grave obligation, freely undertaken (canon law is explicit that both ordination and matrimony must be freely chosen commitments), and in this regard it is thus analogous to “cheating” on one’s spouse.

There are also serious moral and canonical questions to be raised regarding the abuse of Fr. Cutie’s spiritual office as a priest in this regard.

In the realm of moral theology, it is gravely sinful for a priest in particular to cooperate with another person in sexual sin, particularly if that person is one of the souls entrusted to his spiritual care, but also in regard to anyone in general. The priest by virtue of his ordination has a sacred position that elevates him above the ordinary faithful in a way paralleling Jesus’ words:

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a great millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea. Woe to the world because of things that cause sin! Such things must come, but woe to the one through whom they come! (Matthew 18:6-7).

On the canonical side, the Church is quite concerned that its ministers not abuse their sacred office by using it for purposes of seduction, or even for the willing subversion of another’s soul. This is illustrated by the canonical penalties to which a priest is subject if he solicits a sexual sin in conjunction with the sacrament of confession or if he sacramentally absolves one who is his accomplice in sexual sin, both of which are regarded by the Holy See as graviora delicta (Latin, “graver offenses”) that are reserved to the competence of the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome to deal with (cf. this resource).

We do not know at this point, and may never know, whether Fr. Cutie committed either of these offenses specifically, but the two illustrate the Holy See’s concern that priests not abuse their sacred office toward sexual ends.

Given that Fr. Cutie failed to exercise the morally legitimate option to “just say no” to the attraction he was feeling toward Buni Canellis (and please note: feeling attraction is not a sin; the question is how one chooses to deal with it) and dug himself in this deep, what further options were open to him? The morally legitimate one was . . .

2) Repent

Having cooperated with his own fall into sexual sin, as well as that of Buni Canellis, what should Fr. Cutie have done at some point—either when the press publicized his relationship or before or after this point?

An obvious solution would have been to repent—which is what we all need to do when we have fallen into sin, whether sexual or otherwise. Such an action is required by the terms of the gospel:

Jesus went into Galilee, proclaiming the good news [gospel] of God. “The time has come,” he said. “The kingdom of God has come near. Repent and believe the good news!” (Mark 1:14b).

Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit” (Acts 2:38).

A clear and obvious way in which his act of repentance could have been expressed would be to break off his romantic (and possibly sexual) relationship with Buni Canellis.

Given that the matter had now been made public, there would remain questions regarding his ability to function as a priest. He certainly would have had to accept a lesser role, certainly retiring from the high-profile work he had been doing on radio and television, and quite likely retiring from any exercise of priestly ministry apart from certainly highly specialized cases (e.g., hearing the confession of a person about to die).

Even if the matter had not become public at the time of his repentance, however, there would be various factors that could make the exercise of ministry doubtful—e.g., if Buni Canellis would not accept his decision and threatened to expose him to the press.

We do not know, and likely will never know, whether that would have been the case, but a simple “call off the affair” course of action may have been difficult for any number of reasons, including Cutie’s emotionally attachment to Buni Cannelis and commitments he may have made to her regarding their future. In that case, what options would be open to him? The obvious one would be . . .

3) Pursue Laicization

While the Church recognizes the sacred commitment that is entailed through ordination to the priesthood, it also recognizes that the ordained may be or become unsuitable for the role of priest.

In other words: There can be mistakes. Sometimes a man may be ordained to the priesthood who is not truly suitable for it. Alternately, a man can through his actions make himself unsuitable for priestly ministry. It could be the case that Fr. Cutie was unsuitable from the beginning for priestly ministry or that, though his actions, he had made himself such.

In such cases, the remedy that canon law provides is a procedure known as “laicization” or, more technically “loss of the clerical state.” This does not (automatically) mean that his ordination was invalid, but it does mean that—in the cases of a valid ordination—a laicized priest apart from certain carefully subscribed situations (e.g., hearing the confession of a dying person), is returned to the lay state such that he is prohibited from exercising his faculties as a priest. It also can (but does not always) involve release from the obligation of celibacy. (See this part of the Code for more on the loss of the clerical state in general.)

After reflection on his situation, Fr. Cutie thus could have deemed that he was unsuitable for priestly ministry from the beginning and pursued laicization. He also may have (with a very high degree of plausibility) thought that his actions with regard to Buni Canellis had made him unsuitable for it and pursued laicization on those grounds, including an appeal to the Holy See to allow him to be released from the obligation of celibacy so that he could marry Buni Canellis in view of the emotional/other attachments and obligations he felt existed between them.

Such a path would not have resulted in an instantaneous way of rectifying their situation, or an easy and quick means of resolving the situation (such decisions are left to the discretion of the Holy See), but pursuing this path could represent a fundamental act of repentance and an intention to “make things right.”

By the end of [May, 2009] Cutié announced that he had been in the process of discerning entering The Episcopal Church for the last couple of years, which in turn helped him consolidate marriage and his calling to serve God.

Father Alberto Cutié was received into the Episcopal Church on May 28, 2009, by the Rt. Rev. Leo Frade, the Cuban-born bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Southeast Florida, and became the administrator and pastoral minister of the Episcopal Church of the Resurrection in Biscayne Park, Miami, where he was licensed as a pastoral assistant. He was subsequently received as an Episcopal priest and instituted as priest-in-charge of the congregation on May 29, 2010.

On June 26, 2009, Cutié and Ruhama Buni Canellis married in a church ceremony at St. Bernard de Clairvaux Church in North Miami Beach. [Episcopalian] Bishop Frade officiated, assisted by the Rt. Rev. Onell Soto (retired Episcopal Bishop of Venezuela) and several other Episcopal clergy.

Cutié is presently serving as the Priest-in-Charge at the Church of the Resurrection in Biscayne Park, Florida. On November 30, 2010, Canellis gave birth to the couple’s first child, daughter Camila Victoria Cutié. Canellis has one other child from a previous marriage.

Cutie thus chose to “jump ship”—to defect from the Catholic Church and enter the Episcopalian Church, where he attempted marriage with Buni Canellis.

Was this a legitimate option for him?

On objective moral and canonical grounds, the answer is no.

While one can never judge the subjective state of a person’s heart, from the perspective of objective moral theology, the answer is no. Objectively speaking, many non-Catholic communities retain elements of the patrimony willed by Christ for his followers, but only the Catholic Church retains these elements in their fullness. While a person in good conscience may find salvation in many faith communities, to deliberately to separate oneself from the fullness of truth and grace that the Catholic Church represents is gravely sinful. As an informed Catholic to whom God would provide sufficient light and grace to retain his faith, Fr. Cutie’s abandonment of the Church represents an objectively grave situation that could only be a non-mortal sin through a lack of due knowledge or a lack of due consent.

Further, from the canonical perspective, Fr. Cutie’s situation does not mean that he is validly married to Buni Canellis. According to Canon 1087:

Those in sacred orders invalidly attempt marriage.

The fact that Fr. Cutie was ordained and has not—so far as we know—been laicized with the ability to contract marriage—means that his attempt to contract marriage in the Episcopalian Church is just that—an attempt, and not a successful one.

Unless there are facts regarding the case that have not yet become public, his present civil marriage to Buni Canellis is invalid and thus in the category that Jesus warned us against, telling us that divorce does not entail an automatic right to marry someone else and can, thus, lead to situations of adultery.

From what is presently publicly known (so far as I can determine), Fr. Cutie is living in an invalid marriage and thus is engaging either in objective fornication or objective adultery (given Buni Canellis’s previous marriage).

Either way, things look bad.

In this part of the series, we have looked at the options available to Fr. Cutie at different steps in his life history. In the next part we will look at the book he has chosen to write, as represented by its press release.

Mary Stevenson, You are reflecting the way we think when we aren’t thinking of the big picture. The spirit and the flesh are opposed to each other. The priest IS already married, although some don’t act it and parishioners can be confused as to what they believe their true vocation is. And God’s grace is REAL. This particular priest seems to have been popular and his pride may have increased. He put himself above his faith and his vows and showed no humility in how he left the priesthood, joining another church before he was even released from his vows. Isn’t that clearly NOT the narrow way? He encouraged a temptation and it grabbed hold. He does not seem to have used the sacrament of reconciliation to repent, but seems to be on a mission to justify his action by writing about himself from a victim standpoint. He chose the priesthood. He took the vow of celibacy. He understood exactly what was being asked. He received the laying on of hands. Does God exist or not? Does he give grace or not? Are we animals or thinking beings made in the image and likeness of God with souls? Certainly if he chose to leave the priesthood first because he felt he wasn’t called to it, but to marriage, he had that option, but he wants to be a disobedient son and a shepherd. Where is he going to lead a flock? To rebellion, we see.

Posted by Mary Stevenson on Tuesday, Jul, 29, 2014 4:59 PM (EDT):

“Fallen?” There is nothing “fallen” about a man falling in love with a woman and getting married. There is nothing “fallen” about that man being a priest and leaving the priesthood of his particular church - what IS fallen is the Catholic Church’s oppressive treatment of priests by enforcing the celibacy rule. It’s unnatural and Cutie did absolutely nothing immoral by breaking it. There is nothing “fallen” by what he did and the person who selected that word not only misappropriated it, but should be ashamed.

Posted by michele dement on Monday, Sep, 10, 2012 9:50 PM (EDT):

I’ve been a Catholic all my life and have thought since the age of 18 it is insanity that priests can’t marry. The Roman Catholic Church comes up with some bizarre laws. Popes and priests used to marry until around the 12th century. I fully support Father Cutie and his decision to marry the woman he fell in love with. He could have handled it a different way, but he didn’t. Get off his case, he’s gone on with his life, it’s time the rest of you do too. The shortage of priests could possibly be curtailed if the Church would lift the veil on marriage. There are good men who will avoid the priesthood in the RCC because they can’t marry. What a shame! It should be personal choice by the priest. Honestly, a priest is a man first that God created, and there is NOTHING wrong with serving God, AND having a wife. Reality check - just like you can’t tell the flowers not to bloom in spring, the sun rise and set- you can’t keep a man and woman from falling in love. I have found that God’s will prevails and He can work in glorious and mysterious ways. Quite frankly, I believe Father Cutie is right where God wants him.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Jun, 4, 2011 9:12 PM (EDT):

Marcell, If you read the Gospels and the Epistles it is clear that Jesus, Peter, Paul, Jude and others all stess how offensive sexual sins are. The battle is always between the Spirit and the Flesh. It is a question of where the heart is, above or below. While God is merciful, he expects a contrite heart! That means an acknowledgement that what was done was an offense against God. When the priest takes a vow or the married person or the confirmed Catholic, they can’t stay in sin and say, “God is merciful.” His mercy is in His willingness to forgive and give grace to overcome the sin. It is NEVER to say the action is not sin. And that seems to be what is happening. People want to reclassify actions rather than admit sin. Sounds more like Adam than Christ!

Posted by Marcell on Saturday, Jun, 4, 2011 8:37 PM (EDT):

God is merciful, and gave all his children FREE WILL…and if you would read the history of the Roman Catholic Church you would be aware that the clause of the clergy not marrying came about because of the abuse of the Popes and those of high rank, their procreation of bastard children, and the gain of assets that were being drained from the Vatican. Has nothing to do with what God wants.

p.s. next time you pass judgment on someone remember, it is Jesus who will come to judge the living and the dead

Posted by mk on Monday, May, 9, 2011 9:30 PM (EDT):

Gosh Cradle, they’d have to be comatose not to know that the Holy Spirit grieves His Bride. But thanks for pointing it out anyway. Though that last sentence doesn’t even make sense. The Holy Spirit grieves per how He reveals Himself in the Bible? Seriously? Unless you have a translation I’ve never heard of, I don’t recall the Holy Spirit grieving over gay priests anywhere in Scripture…*sigh*

MK - Your second comment crossed with mine. Not to engage in a lengthy dialog with you, but for the sake of the others, you wrote: “Father George, I cried for a full half an hour after reading Brother Marks and your comments on the homosexuals in the Clergy. Breaks my heart. It’s like watching a beautiful virginal bride get raped. And there is nothing I or any other lay person can do about it, except pray. And I do. God bless you for not pretending that it isn’t happening. If more of us KNEW, more of us could pray.”

Cradle’s reply-
“If more of us KNEW…”? And “there is nothing I or any other lay person can do about it, except pray”?

Therein lies the difference between you MK, and Catholics like me, & even Twelve, non-Catholic, but a fellow Christian who speaks up for God’s Truth. One would have to be comatose to not know about what ails our church; and lay people do have a say, as WE are The Church.

It’s not only you that crys buckets of tears, MK. What ails our church grieves the Holy Spirit too, per how He reveals Himself to us in the Bible.

Posted by mk on Monday, May, 9, 2011 8:09 PM (EDT):

As for Freddy, I don’t remember a comment from him since December.

Which proves my point. You don’t read what people write. I’m surprised you actually read my comment. Of course, even there, you managed to take what I said out of context and give it your own spin. No. I’m not done commenting. Just done laughing. Actually, you make me very sad.

Posted by mk on Monday, May, 9, 2011 8:06 PM (EDT):

Why Cradle? Heat gettin’ to you? You can always leave the Kitchen. Don’t recall seeing “Cradle Catholic” in the byline.

@ MK - By “done now”, I hope you mean you are out of words & finished w/ this blog. But Pam, on the other hand, is a Catholic I miss hearing from. Pam is always charitable and polite, even when she disagrees.

As for Freddy, I don’t remember a comment from him since December. But I remember thinking when he wrote that more Catholics leave for Evangelical churches than Evangelicals becoming Catholic, what he wrote squared with what’s happening to Catholic folks in my area.

I pray Fr. Cutie and his family are doing well, and our church becomes healthier, and there will be more Bible-based options, for our clergymen in the future.

Posted by mk on Monday, May, 9, 2011 8:02 PM (EDT):

Okay, sorry, I couldn’t help myself.

Kathy, Pam (as always), TheresaEE and Pastor Brad and Father George,
Thank you, thank you, thank you. Having ridden the Merry-go-round with Cradle and Twelve and the others I can tell you that they will engage, pretend like they don’t understand, claim they have “never heard that before” and before you know it, it’s 4:00 in the morning. You can give them all the answers they want (love the one where Cradle claims that no Catholic will touch “such and such a passage”...trust me, been there, done that…she knows ALL of the things you are telling her. She only pretends not to. I can prove it if you like) My point is, that Father George is right in saying that we need to be respectful of our Protestant brothers and sisters, but we must also learn which are truly Christian and which belong to their own churches. These guys don’t listen to or belong to any mainstream Church and base their beliefs on their own opinions…period. They are their own authority and God Himself couldn’t change their minds. HOURS I tell you. HOURS I’ve spent with them, patiently believing we were having an honest discussion…but we weren’t. It’s all reindeer games to them.

Father George, I cried for a full half an hour after reading Brother Marks and your comments on the homosexuals in the Clergy. Breaks my heart. It’s like watching a beautiful virginal bride get raped. And there is nothing I or any other lay person can do about it, except pray. And I do. God bless you for not pretending that it isn’t happening. If more of us KNEW, more of us could pray. For the sake of His sorrowful Passion, have Mercy on us and on the whole world.

Posted by mk on Monday, May, 9, 2011 7:05 PM (EDT):

Well if one takes things out of context one can prove anything.

Freddy, coming from an evangelical protestant, that was HILARIOUS! *chortle* Taking things out of context…*snort*...one can prove anything…*gasp*...an evangelical accusing a Catholic of taking things out of context *wipes tears from eyes*...priceless. Okay, *deep breath* done now.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Apr, 24, 2011 1:55 PM (EDT):

New Observer, Have just read the passage from Ephesians 4:30. In Ephesians 6:13 He says “Therefore, put on the armor of God,that you may be able to resist on the evil day and, having done everything,to hold your ground.” Why would you need to put on the armor and hold your ground if you couldn’t be lost? The armor is truth, righteousness and readiness for the gospel of peace. Also in the comment before this there is a typo, but Jesus not only asked Peter if he loved Him three times, (once for each time Peter denied Him), but after each time He gave Peter a penance: Feed my lambs, Tend my sheep, Feed my sheep. Jesus also said in one of the ressurection accounts, Luke 24:47,“Teach repentance for the remission of sin.” For the sin to be overcome it needs to be admitted as Peter had to do to Jesus and there needs to be penance, a form of atonement or act of charity that shows the true sorrow for the sin. If the sin is not repented then the person will answer to God for it. As to Popes and Bishops et.al. they spend years in formation and they have required prayers for every day that include passages from the Bible. They know not only the Bible but the works of the great theologians. Now we live in very confused times. There are people who say they believe and yet lack faith. They act in contradiction to Christ’s teaching, in areas like abortion rights and gay marriage. So we need the armor of truth and righteousness because these values are under attack. Many of these people say they believe in Jesus. In todays paper is a mother who says her son’s gay marriage doesn’t affect anyone else. Sadly, that is just not true. She wants to rejoice in his marriage to another man and is sad that some people either there is no marriage or that it is wrong. She wonders what the lawmaker would do if it was his own child. If God was first in the mother’s or lawmakers life, they would lovingly and firmly tell their child they were committing a sin, refusing a cross, denying God’s grace and perhaps breaking off their relationship with Jesus Christ. They are setting an example of self-indulgence and self-pity rather than self-control and they are leading souls and a nation astray by their example. We also have a movement where people judge each other and drop little guilt bombs based on their judgments. They will not talk to you or ask a question as Jesus asked Peter, they just commit this mental mayhem because in the cesspool of their own soul they perceive a sin. Rather than cleaning up their cesspool, they go after the one who made them confront the cesspool. It is all so unChristian and destructive. I have heard one person refer to it as convicting someone in the Spirit. It is a way to destroy love not build it. Everyone is looking for faults in the other and no one is clearing the air and all this YUCK is sitting out there and festering and causing more sin. I refer to it as group rape because it is an assault that victimizes with no redemptive quality but a definite political agenda and it is anything but the armor of a gospel of peace. So if you look around New Observer you see there are lots of ways souls are very much in danger. Hell does exist and our loving God did not hesitate to condemn a third of His angels to it. The road is wide that leads to destruction. Hope this clarifies where I am coming from. I don’t believe the logic is “unbiblical”. It is just the opposite I think, very biblical.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Apr, 23, 2011 9:05 PM (EDT):

New Observer, Let me get some passages together for you. I understand your concerns. There are several passages that say don’t let the grace be wasted on you and Paul warns about false teachers and teaching a gospel other than the gospel of Christ and Jesus says once you put your hand to the plow if you look back you are unfit for the kingdom, but I will look into it more fully for you. I am repeating Catholic teaching so I will check other Catholic sources. Yes sin does separate us from God and cause us to lose grace and loss of grace can lead damnation if it goes far enough that is why we have the sacrament of reconciliation. Peter went out and wept bitterly and Jesus asked him three times, “Jesus do you love me?” in reparation for Peter’s three denials. Repentance and the sacrament of reconciliation is necessary for every serious sin.

Posted by New Observer on Saturday, Apr, 23, 2011 12:54 AM (EDT):

Pam, You keep repeating the passage of “He who has ears let him hear” without applying the same standard to yourself. In Ephesians 4:30 Paul tells believers——-“you were sealed for the day of redemption.” This does not mean you are unsealed—if you sin. Where in the Bible does it say “His” people, who are called by His name—are unsealed—if they sin? Where? You keep throwing Peter at us and telling us Jesus gave him the keys of the Kingdom and was the first pope. By your logic, since Peter denied even knowing Jesus (and for that matter all the apostles who ran away when Jesus was arrested), were Peter and the apostles then suddenly “unsealed” and had lost their salvation for their sin of denying Jesus? Pam, your logic is totally unbiblical. You have been listening to popes, bishops and other clergy who have led you astray since they also do not know the Bible. I know it is hard to accept since you look up to these men. However, when you hear a priest or church leader tell you something which is contrary to God’s word, it is the Bible which must have the final word.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Apr, 22, 2011 10:20 PM (EDT):

Cradle, My comment was a general statement. Not directed at you specifically. I explained how we can lose salvation- by giving in to temptation. We have free will. God will NEVER abandon us and with the slightest prayer He will hurry to assist us so it’s true no one can ever take us from Him, but He will also NEVER force Himself on us and we can walk away. Paul, your favorite disciple had men who did it. Solomon did it. All the people who could not fathom eating Jesus’ body and blood did it when they left Jesus. The walking away doesn’t have to be final. But it may be. Hell exists. You are misjudging the Catholics again about the Bible. And we are ALL separated from God to a greater or lesser extent. The great saints saw Him and the Blessed Mother and spoke to them. The less sin in us, the closer we come to THAT kind of union. Wouldn’t that be wonderful? Happy Easter. Let’s comfort the Lord tonight. God bless.

Pam - I am not complacent in sin. Sin is separation from God. My beliefs about celibacy are 100% in alignment with God’s will, and my belief that salvation can never be lost is found in the New Testament.
How can anyone read the Book of Romans, and come out thinking they can lose salvation?

It is sinful to reject God’s clear teachings. It is sinful to disregard God’s clearly stated will. The Bible is the inspired Word of God. Yet Catholics overlook it. Actually, they disregard it, not even reading it in context, considering the Bible, & God’s Word, irrelevant. That’s sin.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Apr, 21, 2011 10:35 PM (EDT):

Sounds like you didn’t read the whole response Cradle. You sound like you are in deep denial. You are still running from the truth. You can’t say you know God or Jesus Christ and be complacent in sin. By knowing God or Jesus Christ, you would also know grace and it’s power to overcome sin and you would be running to the sacraments and spending time in prayer to overcome a serious sin.

Cradle, “Faith comes from hearing and hearing,by the Word of God.” Faith is a gift and the Word can be heard in the heart or through the soul or by reading the Bible. Abraham was given the gift because of his curiosity and desire to know God. John the Baptist had the gift in his mother’s womb. The little child in China who has never heard God’s name mentioned may be given the gift because of the wonder they feel for the world around them.
As to point one: There are different spirits and Jesus told us we would know them by their fruit. Someone who has been seeking goodness and seeing a creator in the world may not know God by your standards, but they know God. He has been showing Himself to them and leading them to that point. The Holy Spirit will guide them closer and closer. The answers they need will come to them in what they hear or read or experience. God does this for us.(They will be judged by a lower standard too, since they haven’t had the Gospel preached to them.) Some people lie. If it is obvious they are trying to gain power, control, glory whatever, then perhaps they are lying. But even so judging is probably not the thing to do. Stearing them on the right course by engaging them in a conversation would be better.
Point two: The work is God’s but He will NEVER impose it on us. We have to be willing participants. So even though someone is converted, like some of Paul’s coworkers, but they turn away (because they thought it demanded too much), they can indeed lose the salvation they had at one point. Even in the parables there is a story of the bad person who converts and receives life and the good person who turns bad at the end of his life and loses heaven. It is very REAL that our salvation can be lost. Now God isn’t looking to condemn us so when we sin, we have the GIFT of the sacrament of reconciliation. We need to repent, confess the sin, and do penance. If we don’t repent we are saying no to God and we are jeopardizing our salvation.

The Holy Spirit points us to Jesus = the Word. We all get to know someone by hearing from them, spending time with them, seeing how they think.

We get that primarily from the Bible, because “faith comes by HEARING, and hearing, by the Word of God.” Without faith, it is impossible to please God.

I agree with you that God is doing the work of conforming us to His Son, and as you wrote, “The work isn’t yours. It is God’s and He accomplishes it in us. We don’t accomplish it in ourselves.” I agree with you 100%.

With that said, two points:

1- Too many people that do NOT know Scripture claim to be led by the Holy Spirit, but if they do not know God, they can’t be led by Him. It is another “spirit” leading someone that does not know God.

2- Since God is doing the work IN us, that is why I believe we cannot lose our salvation. God is not, for lack of better words, an Indian giver, giving us the free gift of salvation, and then when we blow it, taking it back. Rather, as you wrote, “We don’t accomplish it in ourselves.”

And that’s the Good News. Jesus died for us, while we were still sinners, and when we couldn’t save ourselves. God, who did a good work in us, brings it to completion. We obey Him, out of love, from knowing Him, and from wanting to please Him, our loving Father.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Apr, 20, 2011 12:44 AM (EDT):

Cradle, Perhaps this is where you are getting lost. The work isn’t yours. It is God’s and He accomplishes it in us. We don’t accomplish it in ourselves. Jesus went to heaven telling us that He would ask the Father and the Father would give Him WHATEVER He asked and what He asked for was ANOTHER advocate for us. One who would lead us to all truth. Many people can’t read. Many will live their whole lives and never see a Bible. Many never get proselytyzed (sp?) but if they seek God He can come to them and the Holy Spirit is their instructor. He even spoke about how we will not need teachers (although we love to learn from holy men and women) Jesus never points us to His Word. He IS the Word. People in love with the Lord will certainly WANT to know Him and one way is through reading the Bible but another is through prayer and fasting and almsgiving. It is a personal relationship with Jesus. Nowhere in the Bible does He command anyone to write down His words and compile them and hand them out to believers, because He is alive and He said He would never leave us and He gave us the Spirit to guide us and we can talk to Him at any moment and know that He hears us and WILL answer all our questions. It is an act of faith that He is personally involved in your life and ready to help you with whatever it is you need.

Pam- I appreciate the time you always take, in answering with detail.
And while I also appreciate what you wrote, one sentence is troubling. It’s when you wrote, “The Spirit will lead them to all truth with or without the Bible.”

Here’s where I’m coming from regarding the Bible:
The Bible is like a plumb line. An architect or home builder would never begin building a home, without a plumb line OR the building could end up looking like the leaning Tower of Pisa.

Same thing with the Bible. To a Christian, the Bible IS the plumb line. So everything we hear must be weighed & measured against it, for Truth. The Holy Spirit leads a child of God into Truth, and the Spirit always points us to Jesus. Jesus points us to His Word.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Apr, 19, 2011 10:44 PM (EDT):

Cradle, Yes, everything is grace!(St. Theresa of the Child Jesus) But God LONGS to give us grace!(St. Theresa of the Child Jesus) We only need to ASK. Of course our life has been changed if Theresa of the Child Jesus and Mother Theresa are our models. A conversion has taken place and it is sustained with the sacraments. People may or may not read the Bible, but they will hear the word of God at Mass or meditate on Christ’s life with the Rosary. The Spirit will lead them to all truth with or without the Bible. As to living it out day to day, we don’t DO those things, Cradle. God does them through us with our cooperation. We forgive through God’s grace. God gives grace and mercy through us even when we are shabbily treated again by His grace and the “unloveable” can become loveable again by God’s grace. With His grace we can see things in a different light, with His eyes. And because some days we cooperate better than others, sometimes we CAN’T do those things. But we can work on how much effort we put into cooperating with God’s grace. St. Theresa of the Child Jesus understood how hard it was to make GREAT sacrifices for God. She is a Doctor of the Church because she helped the Church to understand the “little way.” She knew she WASN’T capable of GREAT sacrifices but she offered what she could. All the little sacrifices. That’s the point. Day to day there are people who intentionally give you a hard time. If you buy into their anger they win, but if you see before you a chance to give something back to Jesus by overlooking their rudeness or by being respectful despite their rudeness, God may use you to break down their anger. Even if He doesn’t, He has helped YOU to respond to anger or hatred with love. Or for instance, some tasks are boring and repetitive, but if we do them with care and love because we want to please Jesus then we grow in holiness and the ability to die to ourselves.

Pam - what you describe, the “do this and do that” differently & unselfishly, is the result of a changed life, a life focused on Jesus, and on others. In the flesh, we are all selfish. What you describe is living in the Spirit.

So how can anyone “do” all of that, consistently, without the benefit of being filled daily with the Holy Spirit? How can we even know the Holy Spirit, if we do not read His Word, the Bible? The Holy Spirit points us to Jesus. Jesus is the Word.

So how can we DO things like: forgive others when we have been offended; give grace and mercy to others, when we have been shabbily treated by them? How is it possible to love someone that might appear “unloveable”?

Posted by Pam on Monday, Apr, 18, 2011 11:17 PM (EDT):

Our cross is to be obedient to God’s will for us as Jesus was to the Father. Everyone has their own cross and it has many layers. From the moment we wake up to the moment we go to bed we are called to love God above all things and our neighbor as ourselves. We are called to pray without ceasing and live the corporal and spiritual works of mercy. St. Theresa of the Child Jesus and Mother Theresa both spoke of the great spiritual gifts to be found in the little events of our days- even something as seemingly insignificant as picking up a pin or washing a dish. St. Theresa of the Child Jesus emphasized the sacrificial part of it. She spoke of offering up all the annoyances of the day, like joyfully accepting the water splashed in her face by the sloppy washing of the nun she worked with. Mother Theresa emphasized the giving part of it. She spoke of doing little things with great love. She saw the cross as bringing love to every action of the day, even if it was picking up a pin. Let’s say you are healthy, married and a mom and have kids and pets and a job. So for you taking up your cross is being conscientious and diligent and loving with all those people and pets in all the circumstances of the day and being conscious of God in all your actions (as best as possible). If for ten minutes of every day you actually succeed in doing that, that’s terrific. Maybe in a week you will do if for fifteen minutes a day and you will grow in love and grace and may actually do some spiritual good for yourself and others by God’s grace. Also,I believe it is a spiritual reality that the better one gets at carrying the little crosses, God will give greater ones - but that shouldn’t be troubling, because spiritually you will see it for the gift it is. He stretches our spiritual “muscles”.

Posted by New Observer on Monday, Apr, 18, 2011 1:08 PM (EDT):

Pam, you wrote above: “He promised ETERNAL life to those who took up their cross and followed HIM.” How do you define taking up one’s cross?

Posted by Pam on Monday, Apr, 18, 2011 12:18 PM (EDT):

Cradle, Do you have any intent to open yourself to the fullness of Truth? or am I wasting time as others have concluded? See how your words put a spin on everything. The early martyr’s were allowed to die for their faith. It was a witness. They actually rejoiced at the opportunity. It was also permitted by God, as Jesus’ martyrdom was, to fulfill His will. Their blood was giving birth to a Church - the Catholic faith that would not renounce faith in the one true God and His Son, our Saviour, Jesus Christ even to be spared death. Jesus had shown them that His Kingdom was not of this world and that they never had to be afraid to proclaim their faith in Him because there IS life after death and He promised ETERNAL life to those who took up their cross and followed HIM. You need to be VERY CAREFUL Cradle, what you label Satanic. It is a sin against the Holy Spirit to label God’s work as Satanic and the one sin that will not be forgiven is the sin against the Holy Spirit. Do you know if it was God’s will, like Judas’ betrayal, only in this case to offer a sacrifice of obedience or that it was Satan? If you are not POSITIVE I wouldn’t label it either way. And why does Satanic activity up to now have to be lighter? I have given you a long list of things that have occurred in the twentieth century; the industrial revolution that put expedience and profit before man and often exploited children, men and women; the World Wars and the holocaust, genocide in Africa and other parts of the world, the roaring twenties and the drug and sex of the sixties, the aids epidemic and open homosexual relationships, the rise of Communism and Fascism and religious intolerance, the rejection of prayer in school and public displays of faith, the increase in divorce and pornography and the abuses of women throughout the world, abortion and millions of lives lost at the hands of their own mothers, the natural disasters. The list goes on and on. If you talk to most “Catholics” they believe in God but not the Church because of the scandals and the politics they see that do not reflect the teaching of Jesus Christ and because of a loss of faith and obedience. This has separated many from the Eucharist, the Bread of LIFE and the sacrament of reconciliation, the vessel of GRACE. Obedience is very dear to God. It is what caused the fall of Adam and Eve and what was asked of Jesus to the point of death for our reconciliation. I am not going to put sins on a scale of one to ten for you to pick away at, but disobedience to the Bishop by a priest is VERY serious. And it isn’t this sin standing alone that is the problem. Alot of this stems from priests falling from grace and rather than working to restore themselves to grace, some are choosing to “change the system”. They have not admitted the destructiveness of their disobedience and the scandal it brings. If as you say, so many are homosexual, they think they cannot overcome the error they made because they think like men. Nothing is impossible with God. They are blaming the teaching, not seeking grace. But it is not this sin alone, but this sin combined with the secularism (so many people who do not have a strong faith background and do not pray and are not even sure if they believe in God and eternal life) and materialism and sensualism and violence and distrust and lack of love and lust for control and power that our whole society is confronted with.

Pam- Are you saying the early Christians that were thrown to the lions and savagely torn apart, and those burned alive, being lit up as lanterns that lined Nero’s back yard for his garden parties, were in a BETTER place than we are now, here in the 21st century?

You’re saying that priests breaking vows to their bishops by having had sex outside of marriage is WORSE than the Satanic persecution that the early church experienced? A vision of work by Satan would be AWFUL. If it’s happening now, that means Satanic activity through history, up to now, was lighter. That’s how I interpret what you mean. Am I correct, just in comparing the severity?

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Apr, 16, 2011 10:06 PM (EDT):

Verity, I checked the Desiderium site and it appears there are many sources that believe the vision did occur and that there were witnesses to it. (Cardinals and staff) Fr. Bers conclusion is questionnable at best. If you are not inclined to believe it, you are not obliged, but if you look at the twentieth century it is certainly an excellent explanation for the turmoil we have been through.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Apr, 16, 2011 9:36 PM (EDT):

Verity, Your logic is changing everytime you get a response that doesn’t fit your view. The Book of Job is part of the Bible which you call the inspired Word of God. It is an example of God allowing man to be tested by Satan. If it was totally out of the realm of possibility that God would do such a thing, it wouldn’t be in the inspired Word of God. It wasn’t because God “enjoyed” it, But God is Love and we are creatures and Lucifer was His highest Angel, so in Love, He may have been allowing Lucifer to see the power of Love and humility, knowing that Job would not disappoint Him and Satan would be made more aware of his error and as creatures we should understand that God can do with us as He wills at any moment - we are not above being used for some other purpose of HIS. As to suffering, it is a mystery. Some people suffer for their sins, some suffer to glorify God (like the one’s Jesus healed while He was on earth and those miraculous healings that occur even now and give glory to God) and some suffer for other’s sins and some we just don’t know and may be being allowed by God to be tempted by Satan, but we do know that all suffering can have redemptive power when it is joined to Jesus’ sacrifice.

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Apr, 16, 2011 2:20 PM (EDT):

Everyone, I think I have found a good source on the Vision of Leo XIII. The man who has researched it is Kevin Symonds who has a website called Desiderium Yearning for a Catholic Restoration. He holds degrees in Theology from the Franciscan University of Steubenville, Ohio. He is the person who has contributed his research to the Wikipedia.
He article is entitled “Papal Eavesdropper or Pious Fraud? Leo XIII and the Twentieth Century.”
In brief he says: Leo XIII did have a vision in 1884, but it is not the vision that is now reported. After Mass the Pope saw a vision of demons converging on the city of Rome. The Pope did not hear any conversation with Satan.
Mr. Symonds appears to be a devout, faithful, honest and scholarly researcher. This article makes sense to me.

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Apr, 16, 2011 4:16 AM (EDT):

Pam, Yes, anyone can post on the Wikipedia, but, they do list their sources. The source for Fr. Bers is listed. If you know of any other source which gives eyewitness accounts or some reputable account from that period of time, please post it.
The Bible is composed of different kinds of literature: history, law, philosophy, psalms (hymns) prophecy. Job belongs in the philosophy department under the heading “Why do the righteous suffer?” It is an Old Testament parable. I am pretty certain that the Roman Catholic Church does not have a completely literal interpretation of the Bible and does not consider the psalms, for instance, a part of the Bible on which doctrine can be based. A good question would be what day is the first chapter of Job used as a Mass reading?
I think that God loves us so much that he would not be entertained by our suffering and certainly would not allow Satan to entertain hiimself with causing us to suffer. The origin of suffering in a world which was created to be good is still a mystery. We cannot say that everyone who suffers is being tested by Satan or being punished for their sins.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Apr, 15, 2011 10:30 PM (EDT):

New Observer, Huh? Sorry you lost me.
Cradle, You are making your own history to go with your own religion. Nothing is real that disagrees with Cradle. That seems to be the gist of your posts. God can and does work in all kinds of ways that don’t seem to meet your standards.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Apr, 15, 2011 10:25 PM (EDT):

Verity, Anyone can post anything on Wikipedia. If that is the quality of your source, I would suggest others. Why would God be less patient and loving with His fallen Angels than with us. He allowed Satan to test Job. This is the kind of inconsistency I see in many of your and Cradles responses.

Posted by Verity on Friday, Apr, 15, 2011 6:44 AM (EDT):

Pam, earlier I made reference to the Wikipedia and the Vision of Leo XIII. In the last paragraph a German priest, Father Bers, is mentioned as a man who researched the story in 1934. He found no historical evidence that the vision ever took place. There is no record of Pope Leo XIII ever mentioning the incident, even when he was being interviewed in 1886. It is probably a hoax. Religions are full of hoaxes. This one is an example of “postdiction” You have heard of prediction, postdiction is predicting something after it has happened and pretending that it was said before. Look at the times. It was between the two world wars. People were suffering from loss of loved ones, unemployment, deprivation, the Great Depression. That was a perfect time to imagine that God was letting Satan torment them.
I cannot say for sure that it never happened, but that there is no evidence that it happened, and frankly it does not make sense for a loving God to play games with Satan concerning our welfare. Now, I do believe there is a Satan and that he can lead us into destruction. But, we cannot blame Satan for our own selfish choices that lead us into sin. We have to take personal responsibility for our bad decisions.

Pam, you wrote, “I will say again all people of all faiths have been sifted according to the vision of Pope Leo XIII.”

The above was just in the imagination of Pope Leo XIII, and it’s being handed down till today - April 2011. This is just like when Pope Gregory the Great (perhaps with good intentions) made a mistake by calling Mary Magdalene a prostitute. She was not. Further, pew people today think Mary of Bethany (Martha’s sister) was Mary Magdalene, all due to that error.

Please - it’s time for the Magesterium to take off their wizard glasses, and for us pew people to just read the Bible, asking ourselves: “What does it say?” Not “How can we read into this, to make it more mysterious and holy?” Enough of Pope Leo’s vision. God does not work like that anymore.

Just today, Mary’s picture was in a coffee cup in Scotland, and the soon to be new princes in England had her picture in a Jelly Bean. Now I know Catholics will want to immediately bid on the Mary coffee cup, but please, control yourselves. God does not work like that - in fact, He never did. TRUTH is found in the Holy Word of God - the Old Testament and the New Testament. Study it!!!!

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Apr, 14, 2011 11:30 PM (EDT):

@Pam who wrote: “Verity, You need to be open to the Truth to receive it.” Pam, after the countless posts you have made on NCR and all the totally unbiblical and imaginative things you have written, your comment to Verity is probably the most self serving in the history of internet blogging.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Apr, 14, 2011 10:08 PM (EDT):

Verity, You need to be open to the Truth to receive it. I thought you had said in an earlier post that you were a convert. Here you speak of people joining the Church to subvert the teaching. There are reasons why the Church does what it does. There are reasons why the sacraments matter. It isn’t about doing what we think is right, it’s about doing what IS right. Disrespecting someone elses faith and its teachings is not right. Receiving the Eucharist isn’t about knowing the ten commandments. It’s about knowing WHO it is that you receive and the CONSEQUENCES of that. Would you tell Muslims how their service should be or Jews or Buddhists? For two thousand years the Church has been led by the Holy Spirit. The Church itself teaches that it is not holy because its members are holy but because because the Holy Spirit dwells in it. Yes we do believe we have the fullness of Truth Jesus imparted. If an individual uses that as a reason to disparage you it is wrong, but if you use that as a reason to disparage the Church you are equally wrong. The Church teaches that it is holy NOT because its members are holy but because the Holy Spirit chooses to dwell in it. Verity, if you are looking for a Church where everything is your way you will probably be looking forever. We follow Christ. We follow the teaching of the Apostles and the insights of the great saints of our faith- the tradition. I will say again all people of all faiths have been sifted according to the vision of Pope Leo XIII. Also, When you talk about someone else and they can not defend themselves it is gossip. It doesn’t matter whether it is face to face or online. The gossip I was referring to was the talk about the priest and the letter. It leads to greater sin - innuendo, intrigue, distrust of the priesthood etc. Look at the HUGE generalization you made: “Now I know the KIND OF PEOPLE who enforce the teaching”!!!??? What is that. Don’t you see how the letter of one man became symbolic of a slue of people you are imagining? If you know three people who were protective of the faith and were all nasty humans I am sorry for your experience. It has not been my experience. Perhaps they felt you were trying to undermine the true faith. Alot of your post is about putting down the faith because of an interaction with certain individuals you didn’t care for. If you can’t get past that than you haven’t even been exposed to the depth of teaching there is in the Catholic Church and the beauty of how it all comes together. Perhaps if you focus on the study of the Church through courses as opposed to individual encounters you will get a truer picture of who we are. As to the priests, it isn’t about illusions. It’s about the truth of grace and the integrity of vows. Grace is real and God Alone is enough. Man is not the solution to man’s problems. God is.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Apr, 14, 2011 2:55 PM (EDT):

PS Cradle Catholic and all, I mentioned my priest who was married for 51 years. He has been very comforting to me in my recent bereavement. He knows what I feel. And, I do not say this to disrespect the celibate clergy. I firmly believe that we need both kinds of clerics.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Apr, 14, 2011 2:49 PM (EDT):

Cradle Catholic, congratulations on reading the Bible and understanding it well. I will still peruse the NCRegister, but, I am unsure if I have any more comments to make. I hope I have not been too harsh on anyone, especially Pam. Good Luck in your efforts for reform.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Apr, 14, 2011 2:42 PM (EDT):

Pam, My Eucharist is also the True Body and Blood Soul and Divinity of Christ; yet it is open to all Baptized and Confirmed Christians. All confirmed Christians have been adequately instructed in the Ten Commandments and everybody knows that. BTW the Eucharist at my parish is carried only by priests and deacons, not lay people called Extraordinary Ministers who can lose it or abuse it. As a matter of fact about 1983 the woman who lived across the street from me converted to the RCC because she wanted to work for abortion rights and women priests from within the RCC. She had had three abortions which she did not regret. How do you think she would have handled the Eucharist if she became an extraordinary minister?
Refer back to what the priest says at the time of the Consecration. Take, eat…drink…All of you. He does not say all of you who are members in good standing in our church. That is hidden on some back page of the missalette; and, if anyone happens to find it, they can read it. Also some other churches are invited to take communion, the Eastern Orthodox, for instance.
What the RCC does is set up a category of everyone outside their approval zone being turned into second class Christians. That was clear to me when I paid over two thousand dollars to accompany my former friend on a pilgrimage to Rome. She kept on complaining that God would not send her a companion of her own faith and pointing out to other people that I was not an RC. When she insulted the memory of Pope John XXIII because he was overweight, people made it clear that they enjoyed my company, but not hers. I never took another trip with her. Why was she such a fanatical person? It is because she had to compensate for not having lived according to the rules of her church. Now she has to force those rules on everyone else while she denigrates people of other faiths.
No, Pam, we are not gossiping here because we do not personally know each other. I am telling you what I have read in Scripture, have learned in history classes and have experienced in my life. It is all anonymous. The link to the priests that I gave above is a matter of public record.
As for the little old lady organist, she did not stand in the pulpit and read the letter to us. The Protestant Pastor had already departed and there were just a handful of us there to hear the letter. I am glad that I heard it because now I know what kind of people it is who enforce the rules in the RCC.
What I said before stands. Even though the words of consecration in the Novus Ordo Mass say Take, eat.. all of you… some non Catholic Christians are not welcome to come to Christ in an RCC church.
In 1988 I visited Charleston SC and went on the porch of an historic RC Church and posted by the door was a sign that non members were not invited to take any sacraments. This is a good idea. People who do not want to be treated as second class Christians are told before they go through the door that they are not welcome to commune with Christ there. Of course, if a person goes through the RCIA and gets the clergy to clean them up with some rituals, then they can forget about vows made in non RC environments, such vows are not first class. Tribunals exist to annul these vows. Newt Gingrich and his Catholic girlfriend could commit adultery; and, at the right point in time, take the RCIA, get cleaned up by having his previous marriages annulled; thereby making themselves just everyday ordinary fornicators, and then take communion. His now wife does not care about how she hurt the second wife, because that woman is beneath her sacrament wise.
Pam, get rid of your illusions! Research done by A.W. Richard Sipe on celibacy in the priesthood says that at any given time 50% of celibate Roman Catholic Priests are sexually active. He stands by his numbers. These are the reasons that I did not join the RCC. Despite all the doctrines and rituals, I did not see that RCC members were sinning any less than anyone else and they rationalized their sins just like everyone else. But, feeling that their church was superior to everyone else, some of them liked to remind you that you were not good enough to take communion in their church. These are the reasons that I do not go there anymore unless invited for a special occasion. My final word: the three people I have known who were for closed communion policies were in their private lives VILLAINS.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Apr, 12, 2011 11:14 PM (EDT):

Verity, I believe the RCIA course was referring to MORTAL sin. In order for a sin to be MORTAL the person must know it is grave sin, be able to consent to it and in fact consent to it. Sin is sin but whether or not it is MORTAL sin is conditional on these factors. The Organist knew she was at a faith service for a different religion than her own. Whether or not she sinned taking communion before the priest sent her the letter is between her and God. Reading the letter publicly was wrong. Catholics should have affirmed the priest, as well. Look at the fruit - intrigue, gossip (still being repeated on this blog!), division etc. We aren’t talking about cliches here. We are talking about following Jesus Christ. You seem to mix up man-made rights with holiness. Perhaps under US Law she can do what she wants with the letter, but as a matter of Christian holiness she shouldn’t be reading it publicly to the group. It is even understandable she would mention it to a friend, but a public reading? Sorry. Verity, our Eucharist is Jesus Christ truly present so it is true that not just anybody can receive it. But see how you phrase it so it sounds like non-Catholics aren’t welcome? That my dear, is sinful. You should know the truth by now that through RCIA all are welcome into the Church. From the beginning converts had to be catechised. As to the question of whether everyone is responsible for keeping the ten commandments, the answer is yes, but the ones who knew them will be held to a higher standard. They exist for all mankind and God is knowable through His creation, so yes all are accountable for doing the right thing, but only to the extent that they should know by their experience.
Cradle, We totally disagree about the priesthood. You don’t believe in grace or don’t understand it or you reject it, but “God alone is enough.” You list some isolated incidents and try to make them the majority. They are not. Life has crosses and priests will have crosses. They will have them no matter what. You think married priests are a solution and just put blinders on to the thousands of ways married priests multiply the problem. Paul spoke of celibacy as superior as well. Enough already. We just disagree. God is greater than you think.

Thank you, Verity. I’ve seen Podle’s blog, but don’t read it regularly. Your comments are all well-thought out, and I agree with what you wrote.

Pam- I don’t think priests go into the priesthood to molest children, some may - but I think the majority would have better intentions. With that said, I think MANY go into the priesthood, having homosexual tendencies or just being a bit confused about where they are, sexually, and the priesthood allows them to blend in, with all males, and even to act out sexually, with other males - remember the term, “The Lavendar Mafia”? —that is coercing other men to have sex.

None of this is necessary. If only the Magesterium would stop the PRACTICE of mandated celibacy, and just allow marriage for priests- ending the ongoing problem of priests being lonely, and turning to:

1) alcohol—which, CAN bring out pedophilia behavior in a priest that would not molest a child, if sober; and
2) turning to women—so far, of the BIG names, we know Fr. Thomas Euteneur admitted to an inappropriate relationship with a woman he was exorcising, and just last week, Fr. Mike Manning, a big television priest in California, admitted to a sexual relationship with a woman.

And Fr. John Corapi, although he DENIES the allegation, IF he were allowed to be married, most pew people would just say, “Hey! Here’s why we don’t believe this!” His wife and family would come out and say, “NO WAY”.

3) Homosexual priests turning to other men- even if it’s not coerced.

Fr. Manning is 70 years old, and he’s tring to “find himself”. Yet he loves the woman. How sad. First, it’s all about the priest. Secondly, he’s obviously not yet grown up.

Pam, we’re losing priests left and right, and for what? To cling on to a PRACTICE that is contrary to the Bible and that is contrary to universal Church Tradition that was in place until the year 1139? It’s nuts. God is not being honored. Pew people can’t trust their church leaders, pastors or bishops, et al.

It does not have to be like this. Celibacy can end tomorrow, if Pope Benedict decided it. And he should. In the US alone, the cost of keeping celibacy has amounted to $2.2 BILLION, and that’s only the molestation of children and teenage boys. It does not take into account the priests having sex with women, or other men. “Lapses”, they’re called.

We would have a more healthy group of men entering the priesthood (MEN, not man-boys) and it would make the priesthood healthier, in time, as our clergy would be allowed to grow up emotionally. No more 80 year old clerics that have the emotional intelligence of a 10 year old (alcoholic) boy, that can’t handle conflict or life. Marriage is a covenant, forever.
Let priests enjoy it, openly and for a lifetime.

Posted by Verity on Tuesday, Apr, 12, 2011 8:31 AM (EDT):

Pam, when I took the RCIA course, I remember the priest saying that in order for a sin to be a sin a person must know that what they are doing is wrong and then do it anyway. Does your catechism agree with that? In that case the organist did not sin as she had no way of knowing that she should not take the communion that Christ had invited her to take…“Take, eat, all or you,” I see no sin in her reading the letter to us. Any letter is the property of the recipient to do with as she likes. We used to have a saying “Don’t put anything in writing that you do not want to see on the front page of a newspaper.” Besides that just spread the word to a few more people that non Catholics are not welcome to come to Christ in a Roman Catholic Church.
As for Judas taking or not taking communion, I am not really convinced either way; although, I would trust Cardinal Mahoney to be giving what is the real opinion of church leaders and Scripture scholars. As a matter of fact, the question had never even come to my attention before you brought it up.
As far as I am concerned Jesus offers Himself to all believers, He said “I am the Good Shepherd, I know my sheep and they know me.” He also said that if you love God, you will keep His Commandments. People who do not keep God’s Commandments, do take communion as we have seen with these abusing priests. They lead others astray and cause others to sin. They will have to answer to God. Do you think that non believers have to answer to God for not keeping the Commandments?
Cradle Catholic, You should really start reading podles.org, especially the “fighting old battles” thread. You would find it interesting. That is a moderated response column and there are many fewer responses.

Posted by Pam on Monday, Apr, 11, 2011 11:15 PM (EDT):

Cradle, You take a leap I am not willing to take. There are some people so broken they could possibly be priests and not believe a bit of the faith and just use the position to have power or access to children or be esteemed or who knows what, but I believe most men except the most heinous, just fell. They gave into temptation but really did believe in God and did not live their faith to protect them from falling - they allowed themselves to dwell on a temptation, they didn’t confess it and avoid occasions of sin, they listened to anyone or anything that rationalized their actions. In other words they fell out of grace. (And since we are discussing this on another blog, they could lose their salvation because of the fall from grace and their lack of care in protecting it. This is an example of that.) They are still believers, but believers who have sinned and need to repent. Besides, if an offense was serious enough that Jesus was talking about taking a brother to court, He was talking about someone who also sinned.

Pam- You wrote, “However, Jesus did not want His followers taking each other to court.”

Cradle’s reply-
When we read Bible verses, it’s very important to see WHO they were written to. For instance, while two believers are not to sue each other, because it gives a bad witness to NON-believers, if there is ONE believer and the other is NOT a believer, the norm is different.

And we will know the believers from the NON-believers by their fruit. There are many priests, bishops, cardinals, and over the years, there have been popes, that are, by their FRUIT, NON-believers. It is of them that Jesus said, “On that day, they will come to me and say, ‘lord, lord, we preached in your name….” and “I will say to them, ‘depart from me, you DOERS OF INIQUITY, I never knew you.” Who preaches in Jesus’ name?

Posted by Pam on Monday, Apr, 11, 2011 9:48 AM (EDT):

Verity, If as you believe, (and I do not) that Jesus allowed Judas to receive the Eucharist, Judas was at least still claiming to be a disciple and one of the twelve. Jesus said of him that it would have been better for him if he had never been born. He also said it was part of God’s plan that he betray Him. The organist sinned. To console her, her true Catholic friends would have pointed out that they would love to have her receive, but the priest was right. The priest sinned. He was part of a sick and sad part of the distortion of God’s mercy. (Which, by the way, is what your thinking is on receiving the Catholic Eucharist without being Catholic). Both sins created much more sin. Sin is always harmful. There is no such thing as personal sin because every sin harms the body of Christ. You and Cradle are the ones who so vehemently want to follow the Bible and yet you ignore it every time it brings a cross. Certainly the parents had a right to go to the police and I don’t blame them. However, Jesus did not want His followers taking each other to court. He wanted us to die to ourselves and take up our cross every day. Our vindication isn’t through men. It is through God. Right now some of our hierarchy is corrupt. They have laid the sins of priests on the laity. We will not get justice. We will suffer. In God’s ways of love it is this suffering that will bring about conversion. People can’t help but see the injustice. They can’t help but see the harm. In Jesus’ way, his followers, even the perpetrators of the injustice, will be brought to repentance. They will not be able to deny the harm they have caused. They will know they have to change. It is happening with the pedophile priest crisis. Some Archbishops are still trying to justify sexual sin under God’s mercy or cover it by making the people responsible for protecting children, but others see that there is no justification and sexual sin and the priesthood can not be together. These priests are working to grow closer to God, to improve their prayer life , to shut off the tv and live their faith seriously and to screen young men entering the priesthood better. If Judas was among the Apostles, he will be among our priests. This isn’t heaven. And if those who continue to sin prevail then beware. Read the signs of the times. Our Lord is at the gate.

Posted by Verity on Monday, Apr, 11, 2011 8:00 AM (EDT):

Interestingly, there is no institution of the Eucharist at all in the Gospel of John. The other three gospels, written closer to the time of Christ all have the institution of the Eucharist. I think that Gospel of John was written about AD 100. But, Luke says that Judas was there after the words of consecration. So, if the consecration was already accomplished in Luke, then it is reasonable to think that Judas had taken the communion and that the food that was dipped by Jesus was not the communion. (And, Christ was not dipping the communion anyway.)
I think this makes more sense, since we all know that people who take communion can have Satan in them by their own free choice afterward.
This brings me to Pam’s other point in where she said that “Regardless of the future bad conduct of the priest” in regard to my example of the priest who was enforcing communion rules on other people, but committing crimes himself. These crimes were not committed just after this time. This incident where the organist was booted from communion took place circa 1985. The priest was part of a pedophile ring which had been operating since the 1970s. These priests all had Satan in them and were saying Mass and channels of grace for the other sacraments. You can access a newspaper article about the ring at www.bishop-accountability.org/news/1995_03_15_Mercurio_FourPriest.htm
It is possible for priests, anyway, to have communion in them and commit Satanic acts right after Mass.
Pam, do you think that this little old lady did more wrong by reading the letter to her friends for consolation of her hurt feelings than the priest did by molesting children for twenty years while pretending to be a man of God? Did the parents of the abused altar boys do more wrong than the priests because they went to the police and the district attorney for public justice? Should the parents have just complained to the archbishop privately for justice? Do you think that complaining to the archdiocese would have brought adequate justice for all?

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Apr, 10, 2011 9:35 PM (EDT):

Verity, You confirm that Judas left and that Satan entered into him. He could NOT have Jesus in him and have Satan there as well. He was seeking out the scribes and with the guards.

Wow - thanks, Verity. You did a terrific job of summarizing this, and you confirmed what I thought, that Judas did indeed received the first Lord’s Supper, with the other apostles. Interesting about the Deacon’s Bench article. Normally I’d not put weight on anything Cardinal Mahoney said, but - how far off could he be, in the sequence of the Last Supper account? <grin> The other verses would validate what Cardinal Mahoney would have said. Pam? Do you have any other verses to add to this? I can’t think of any - thanks, Verity.

Posted by Verity on Sunday, Apr, 10, 2011 1:11 AM (EDT):

Pam and Cradle Catholic, Please check the website, The Deacon’s Bench Catholics and Communion, Jesus and Judas March 12, 2011 by Deacon Greg Kandra. He quotes Cardinal Mahoney saying that Jesus gave communion to Judas on the night of the betrayal. No scripture is cited.
In Matthew 26:20-25, there is no mention of Judas leaving early. Likewise, in Luke 22:21, after the words of consecration, Jesus says “Even now my betrayer is here, his hand with mine on the table.” There is no mention of Judas leaving.
In John 13:30 Jesus has given Judas bread dipped in the dish. Judas received it and then Satan entered into him and then he went out.
That is all I can write at present. I just baked a cake for coffee hour tomorrow and am tired and must get to bed.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Apr, 9, 2011 8:17 PM (EDT):

Verity and Cradle, In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus is at Supper with all His disciples and they all are together. They all leave the room and go to the garden of Gethsemane together, but they are met there by Judas who has gathered soldiers, scribes and pharisees. He did not leave with them and go to the garden. He had already left.
Cradle, I am very aware of the corruption and have my own experiences with the corruption. None of it makes Jesus’ words and methods less true. Just because we are faced with corruption doesn’t mean we reinvent God’s teaching to suit the situation. Christ told us the way. The persecution is to be expected. We aren’ living for this world anymore. We are living for Jesus Christ and He expects us to love and bear our crosses - whatever He allows. Jesus faced corruption and lies and slander and violence and showed us how He expects it to be handled. It isn’t with the world’s ways. It doesn’t make me Pollyanna, with grace it might make me faithful.

Pam- You are very sincere, and I appreciate that. With that said, you also sound like Pollyanna, in how you view the church and potential conflict in it. I had two things happen, and in both, I got nowhere.

The first was a New Age nun that was teaching what I’d call heresy - I went to her first, telling her where I thought she was wrong, and she ignored me. So I went to a seminary library, and equipped myself with FACTS, and I went to the pastor, and he said, “If you have a problem with sister, you must go to her.”

I told him I’d already been to her and she dismissed me. So after 15 minutes of him sounding like a broken record - he was not going to do ANYTHING, although I told him it was his responsibility - I wrote to the bishop. He kindly responded to my letter, telling me “not to worry about it, people will realize it’s not accurate information.” - So I wrote to him two MORE times, including the handout of the class. Each time, I got nowhere…..

So for another priest, that called the abuse EVEN OF CHILDREN “sin” and not a “CRIME”, from the pulpit, I spoke to him after Mass, and tried to state my opinion of what he’d said. He dismissed me too, saying, “Well, this problem is so big, there’s no way WE could solve it…” Even though I shared with him that HE had an excellent opportunity to preach and teach truth about it, and not use the pulpit to diminish the topic. I got nowhere…..

So when the opportunity arose to write an article about clergy abuse in a local SECULAR newspaper, I grabbed the chance. Yes, noses were put out of shape. But…................Pam, the church just does NOT do the right thing, and Bible instructions are IGNORED, when someone tries to do it the “right” way. Pam - you may live in an area where your world is ideal, and you have excellent priests, and an excellent bishop, and your world is pristine. Not everyone has that. Is it possible you are a Pollyanna?

And I too, like Verity, need to know where Jesus sent Judas away before the first Eucharist. I don’t remember that at all. In fact, it’s news to me. Thanks!

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Apr, 9, 2011 2:42 AM (EDT):

Pam, Please post the Book, Chapter and Verse that says that Jesus sent Judas away before The First Eucharist because I have never heard of it.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Apr, 8, 2011 10:24 PM (EDT):

Verity and Cradle, We totally disagree on this. You are in fact trying to dismantle the Church no matter how much you disclaim it. Regardless of the future bad conduct of the priest and the poorly worded letter, I maintain the lady was wrong to read the letter publicly before she spoke to the priest. Her issue was with him. If she disagreed even your Bible says first go speak to the person, then go with one other and then bring it to Church. So you are being hypocritical in how you follow the Bible. She just created intrigue and stirred up dissension. It has nothing to do with secrecy and everything to do with holy behavior. Poor little lady, mean nasty priest makes a good headline and juicy gossip but it just wounds the body of Christ. Neither of you truly understand the faith you have been given. Neither of you understands the significance of Jesus Christ, truly present in the Eucharist. Jesus asked Judas to leave before He instituted the Eucharist. He did not want to enter Him. So even He took care who received Him. In the story of the prodigal son,the Father waited and the son had to “come to his senses” before he headed home. There is a side of Christ you want to deny. He can take care of Himself so be careless with this unfathomable gift of self He has given us? NO! His Church wants everyone to come to Him, but not on their terms. Those would be the ones who did not put on the wedding garment at the feast. They would harm themselves, but you don’t care about them either. You think because there is a sexual abuse scandal the Church’s teachings are all up for discussion? Rubbish. The teachings have always been correct. People have sinned and gone astray, not following the teaching. The teaching has always been there and the fruit are the thousands of beautiful saints and the spread of the Church from 12 peasants to millions worldwide. The only thing that is needed is true repentance, which neither of you seem inclined to show. For all the charity you seem to want to show a woman who needed some guidance but instead was hailed as a victim, you show none for Christ in the Eucharist, none for a Church in crisis, none for two thousand years of Christian truth passed on through the lives and teaching of great souls fed by Christ and His Church and led by the Spirit. Christ is the same yesterday, today and forever. His Church’s teaching are protected by the Holy Spirit. His Church is Holy, not because the individuals are holy, but because the Holy Spirit dwells in it. You make it clear how true the adage is that a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. You need to educate yourself more on the faith! No, you need to beg for faith because I see none.

Verity- I do remember that there were some folks concerned about Fr. Cutie giving bread and wine HE consecrated, and by his valid ordination, he would truly be giving them the Real Presence. Frankly, if the elderly organist were in HIS new church, and Fr. Cutie gave her the Body, I think it would be fine.

The condition of her heart, based on the fruit of her life, sounds as if she IS in the Body of Christ already, and thus, eligible to receive Communion, by Jesus’ standards. With that said, I know the standards of the Magesterium, and the RCIA, would be higher than Jesus’ and it would require her to take courses and be an official “church member”.

Posted by Verity on Friday, Apr, 8, 2011 2:18 AM (EDT):

Pam, you are not rational. Cradle Catholic and I do not want to dismantle any Church. With sex abuse payments exceeding three billion and 2/3 of the RC Bishops having covered up and enabled child abuse (see Data on the Crisis: The Human Toll on BishopAccountability.org) the RCC is doing a pretty good job of dismantling itself. Yet, the Old Testament teaches us that there will always be a remnant of faithful people who live according to the Commandments of God Almighty. However, we are examining issues that may affect the functioning of this church and speculating on what reforms could be made in the light of Scripture and Tradition (early church history).
No Christian wants to see the Eucharist desecrated by occultists. But, here I have to add that RC Eucharist which is distributed to extraordinary ministers who are lay people and who take these hosts home with them is being put into much more danger of desecration than any other Eucharist that I know of. In my church only the clergy can carry the Eucharist.
Even so, Jesus is God Almighty and God Almighty can take care of Himself. He is Omnipotent! He can smite the occultists if it is His Will.
The little old lady was very nice. She came from a tradition that does not deny communion to people. Being an organist, she was probably offered communion specially and did not think that she needed to refuse it. After all, does not the priest say “Take this all of you and eat it” How do you think a person should react to that especially if a person has never heard of restrictive communion rules?
The little old lady had every right to read that letter to us and ask us what we thought of it. Secrecy in religion is very unhealthy. No part of the letter suggested that she was desecrating the Eucharist.
There was nothing in that letter to kindly suggest that the priest would talk to her about the faith. It only said “I have to enforce the rules.” What kind of faith would he talk about anyway? What kind of faith does a child molester have? Who is trying to dismantle the Catholic Church more than child molesting priests?
Cradle Catholic, Do you remember earlier on this thread that people were horrified by the idea that Fr. Cutie, by virtue of his RC ordination, was going to be giving the True Body and Precious Blood of Christ to his new Episcopal parishioners? The statement was that his consecrations were valid but not licit. I think that this does tie into what has been said.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Apr, 7, 2011 11:00 PM (EDT):

Verity and Cradle, As much as you would like to dismantle the Catholic Church and create your own, the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. You two argue everything on an emotional level. The passions are what are guiding your thinking. “She understood the significance of what she was receiving, that it was holy and of God.” !!! No it was not of God it WAS and IS God. You are trying to make an argument for desecrating the Eucharist. I hope you realize that. “Jesus can take care of Himself.” So how many of those thorns and scourges and how much of the spit and the weight of the Cross have you added with that blase attitude that would put Him in the hands of the occult who take the host and perform rituals, or the unrepentant sinners who blashpheme the faith, or the simply ignorant who don’t care about the faith and don’t care to know it. He shed blood seeing the sins He was dying for. So sorry you are so indifferent or so comfortable shedding His blood. The little lady should have spoken to the priest, not read the letter publicly, first of all. The little lady knew she was at a different faith service and had a year to ask if it was ok to receive. The little lady if she was truly holy might have felt badly that she took it upon herself without respect for the faith of the Catholics to decide if she should receive (humility). The little old lady could have been consoled and encouraged to talk to the priest and learn about the faith instead of being made into a poster child for desecrating the Eucharist. The priest committed a grave sin. He is being punished. He still was right to tell her she could not receive. The cup is full to the brim and overflowing. How long do you think God will tolerate the disdain for His SACREDNESS?

Verity, I must have gotten that view of Abraham and Sarah somewhere else. I didn’t find it in Genesis. But I don’t believe at all that it has anything to do with monogamy. God is looking for faith. David committed grave sexual sin and murder and God took the life of his son and punished all the Israelites for his sin, but He still recognized and honored David’s love and faith.

Cradle, Yes it was a low blow. I need to go to confession.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Apr, 7, 2011 5:51 PM (EDT):

Pam, You have not posted to me the chapter and verse of Genesis which gives the reason why God was attracted to Abraham. I still think that it is monogamy because the Most High God prevented Pharoah (chapter 12:14-20)and Abimelech (chapter 20:2-7). Remember Abraham and Sarah lied to Pharoah and Abimelech, but that God acted to preserve the chastity of their marriage.

Brenda - It seems as if “Communion” and who does and does not receive Communion, would depend upon if a person is IN the Body of Christ. From the way Verity described the elderly woman, she WAS in the Body, so she should have been given Communion.

The priest, however, based on the FRUIT of his life, may NOT have been in the Body of Christ. He was just “in church” -

Speaking of this in terms of it having Eternal Value: upon the woman’s death on earth, her soul, if she was IN CHRIST on earth, would go to Jesus in Heaven. But the priest, if he was only IN CHURCH, and not in Christ, on earth, would go to Hell.

So let’s just speculate, based on the facts we have thus far. I’m not suggesting we “judge” this priest. Only God can judge us. But we can “discern” his actions, based on what we know.

Did it do him any good to preside at thousands of Masses, and even to receive Communion? No. It’s likely it did not do any good at all. It is likely that the priest’s soul is in Hell, separated from God forever.
We are either IN Christ on earth, and we have until our last breath, to choose, or we are in the world, and the spirit of the world is in us. Our actions will indicate whose ‘spirit’ we have - the Holy Spirit or that of the prince of the world - not God. Our actions is our “Fruit”. We are told, “You will know them by their fruit.”

What a wonderful woman the volunteer organist was/or is, and she was unfairly treated. God is, however, Sovereign, and HE IS WATCHING US.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Apr, 7, 2011 2:15 AM (EDT):

Brenda, I am sorry that perhaps you missed the point. Cradle Catholic understands what I was trying to say. The organist was a little old lady who volunteered to play the organ at both the Catholic and Protestant services at the local old folks home in my hometown. She had been taking communion for at least a year; however long she had been volunteering, because she was unaware that she was not qualified to take it. Someone found out she was Protestant, complained to the priest. He wrote her a letter which she read to us after the Protestant service because she was both hurt and shocked at how unchristian she thought it was. I do not know what she did about the situation after that. All I know is that a few years later the priest, who stated that he had to enforce the rules, received a 16 year sentence for sexually abusing an altar boy and bribing said boy with offering plate money while counting the money after Mass at the hometown parish.
My point was about obedience to rules and how dumb it can really be. Rituals are all about identity and validity, not about behavior. The little old lady was a practicing Christian and surely knew she was not to take communion anywhere unless she was truly sorry for her sins. Cradle Catholic is again absolutely right. Jesus can take care of himself, especially where an elderly lady is concerned. No matter what sins a person may be committing, if that person desires to go to Jesus as He commands us to do if we want to have life within us, they should not be prevented. It is better that He cleanse us from our sins even if that involves punishment than for us to remain in those sins. The main point of my post is the irony of a priest who is a molester of altar boys telling the woman that he must enforce the rules. Such rules could not have been very important to him. He died a few years ago in a maximum security retirement home in the midwest.
I am using this incidence to underscore my point about the most evil people I have ever known were also the most strict people in enforcing communion rules on others. It is sadistic really.
I know other examples.

Posted by Brenda on Thursday, Apr, 7, 2011 12:40 AM (EDT):

Pam and Born Again Catholic: it is Church teaching that to receive the Holy Eucharist, one must be a Catholic in the state of grace. The reason one must be a Catholic is because their reception is proclaiming that they believe 100% what the Church teaches, they are in total agreement or “communion” with the Catholic Church. If the organist did not believe she was in communion with the Catholic Church, she should not have desired to receive the Holy Eucharist. IF she is in complete agreement with the Church, then she should go through the proper channels, RCIA, receive baptism and Confirmation and her first Holy Communion at the Easter Vigil like everyone else does. It would be absolutely wonderful if she decided to make that journey.

Pam - about the organist that was refused Communion in a Catholic church:
If the woman is a Christian, a believer in Jesus, and baptized properly, in the Name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and she understood the significance of what she was receiving (that it’s holy, and of God), I don’t understand why she would be refused Communion.

It’s like priests and conservative Catholics have to “PROTECT” Jesus. He did just fine without us, prior to creation, and He is the all-powerful Sustainer of the Universe. He does not need us to intervene for Him, He is no longer 2 years old, and vulnerable. As my grandmother used to say, “How about us cleaning our OWN front porch, and not focusing so much on the other person?” God is watching us.

Pam, you wrote, “ps: It may have nothing to do with dependability. The priest knows you.”

Cradle’s reply-
Wow - that’s a low blow. Further, I like this priest very much (he knows Scripture) and he has been very kind to me. I just saw him on Sunday. His not getting back to me (in time, by the way, I allowed one week to hear back from all of them - each man is my friend, it wasn’t a race, as your reply suggests), is more that he was just too busy.

But I outlined to everyone that he is single, being pastor of one church with about 400 families in it. Not all 400 families need him at once.
Whereas, the bishop is married, with childen, and he pastors his parish, AND cares for the attached grammar school K-6. The other pastor is married with 4 SMALL children, the youngest age 2, and he works a regular job too.

None of them knew about the others when I sent my one page article to them for proofing. —I merely use that as an example that the only one that didn’t respond in a timely fashion was the priest (my friend - who WOULD have responded later to me, but I told him I already had what I needed.)

None of them STILL know about the others - and granted, it was just ONE week. But from what I have been gathering, because these priests are not married, diocese, etc., throw TONS of things at them, and much of it has no ETERNAL VALUE. It’s just busy work. I was really trying to get accurate data, so I could write a factual paper on a book of the Bible.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 10:02 PM (EDT):

Verity, Just saw your post about Abraham and Sarah. I will refer you to the comment to Cradle - you are stretching to justify an opinion. You are willing to take the word of a single individual if it agrees with you and throw out the teaching of the whole Catholic Church if it disagrees with you. Do you see that?
As to the priest and the organist, the priest’s personal sin do not prevent the sacraments from being valid. His statement to the organist was in keeping with Church teaching so despite any sin, what he did was correct. The organist, a non-Catholic, wanted to receive a Catholic sacrament. This particular sacrament IS Jesus Christ, truly present. She is not educated in the faith or is not in communion with the faith and therefore while he may bless her, invite her to rcia instruction, encourage her interest, he cannot give her Jesus Christ truly present in the Eucharist when he is aware of her status. Why is that hard for you to understand? If she wanted to take home your two year old for the weekend would you just let her? Some things have conditions. Some things are too important to just casually throw about. Jesus is definitely one of them.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 9:48 PM (EDT):

Verity, I listed where the quote comes from. Sorry your google search didn’t work. You can site the name of some priest, but the Church disagrees with him.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 9:41 PM (EDT):

Cradle, You were given information about Christ as groom of the Church and priests as well. It is what the Church teaches. If you choose to reject it, so be it. Perhaps you were thrown for a loop because Paul is one of the sources for the thinking of the priest standing in for Christ as groom of the Church? Your logic is really amazing. You send a letter to three different men and judge the value of celibacy by the speed of the response? The duties of each of the three differ. The prayer life of each of the three differ. The number of parishioners of each of the three differ. The Churches outside assignments for the three differ and on and on. What does is take for you to realize that you only want to believe what you want to believe? Your logic on this one shows just how far you are willing to stretch to justify an argument. ps It may have nothing to do with dependability. The priest knows you.

Pam- I suspect your friend, the Catholic Encyclopedia, is her own pope!! It sounds good to say that a priests chasuble and stole is a wedding garment, but what it really is comes from the Old Testament, when God was specific about what the priestly tribe of Levi would wear, when offering sacrifices, right down to its color and its style.

If the vestments of the priest were for HIM and for US, the Church, where does that leave God? Out in the cold. All worship, our hearts, etc. is to be focused on God. The idea of a priest being “married to” the Church is wrong. Catholics, lay and official apologists, will say anything and everything to justify what they were taught to believe.

As for celibate priests having more time than married priests: I wrote to three men, asking each a question about an Old Testament book several weeks ago. One is a celibate priest. The other is an Anglican bishop, married, with two grown children, and he and his wife are co-principals of their parish school for kids K-6, and the last is a working pastor of a 100 member non-denominational church, he’s married with 4 children.

The first to answer my question was the Anglican bishop, with detailed responses. The second was the working pastor with 4 children - he read every line of the one-page summary I needed to know was accuate. And while I really like the priest a lot - to THIS day, he has not responded.
I saw him at Mass several times, and he apologized for not getting back to me. But I told him not to worry, because I had what I needed, from the Anglican bishop and the non-denominational pastor.

I know the priest is kept busy. But - isn’t DOCTRINE and TEACHING important, and isn’t the outcry for NOT having married priests, “Oh, they will be too busy with their wives and children, and we won’t have our Sacraments”? The Bishop and the WORKING pastor, by the way, counsel couples, trying to keep troubled marriages together. I know that for a fact, because I met one couple the working pastor (and his wife) are helping.

If I am married to any clergyman, even symbolically, I want my husband to be the Anglican bishop or the working pastor - they are dependable.

Posted by Verity on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 3:31 PM (EDT):

I have googled priests’ vestments as wedding garments and found no reference to that at all.
I have also read the Wikipedia article The prayer of St. Michael which describes the vision of Pope Leo XIII. A priest named Fr. Bers researched the story in 1934 and could find no historical proof that the incident had taken place. Pope Leo XIII referring to the addition of the St. Michael prayer circa 1886, made no mention of this vision.
Note Bene: My best friend says this prayer each day while driving to work.

Posted by Verity on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 2:58 PM (EDT):

Yes, Pam, I was editorializing. That is why I started the sentence with the word “perhaps.” I had just noticed that Abram and Sarai were monogamous at that time, and that evidently he was not a womanizer. Do you not think that these things would attract the God who had commandments to give mankind? We do not know why God spoke to Abram. Can you give me chapter and verse that indicates that Abram was seeking the Lord?
You stated in your previous post that “Bringing the organist to the true faith and not exposing the Lord to possible abuse is true charity.” That lead me to think that you thought that giving communion to this little old lady was possible abuse. It is very difficult for me to understand that the priest’s sins are irrelevant and her possible sins are not irrelevant.
I think that your scripture references refer to what we have already stated here, that in the Old Testament God is the spouse of Israel and in the New Testament Christ is the spouse of the Church. I can see that anyone who takes on the priesthood is to consider himself the servant of the people of God. He is in persona Christi and Christ came to be a servant. Again Old Testament Priests were not celibate, and the early church did not have this rule.
But, my own life experiences says that married priests are just as good if not better than celibate ones. At my church our priest is an excellent example. He always performed his duties. He was also married for 51 years, raised four children, has 12 grandchildren; and yet, came to visit me every month for the two years I was confined to the home. However, when my best friend’s father died seven years ago, she could not get a RC priest or deacon from their parish to come to the hospital, and her father had been a faithful, active and founding member of that parish.
I also spoke with a visiting priest this past Sunday who had formerly been an Episcopal Priest. He told me that the Episcopal Church early recognized the problem of child abuse in the mid twentieth century and had handled the situation before it reached crisis proportions. I am stating this as an opinion of someone who is in a position to know what happened. I also read recently that since 1990 the Episcopal Church has had three complaints of child molestation in the whole USA. That does seem to be a lower rate than other churches. Perhaps having married men as priests is beneficial in this area.
I will ask my own priest whether his vestments are meant to be wedding garments. I do know that the priests garments in the Eastern Rites and the Eastern Orthodox are meant to be imperial robes. God Bless.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 11:14 AM (EDT):

Verity, You are not citing history you are editorializing it. Sorry, but you are not willing to accept the truth of Sarah. God changed her name as well. And look how you try to use Abrahams “monogamous” relationship as to why God was attracted to him. We are told why He was attracted to him. Because Abraham was LOOKING for Him and wondering and asking questions in his heart and SEEING the awesomeness of a creator all around him although he hadn’t yet heard of or met him. God LOVED this and saw how special he was and blessed his seeking. As for the communion issue, what the priests sins were are irrelevant to the issue. Why do you ask me how the lady is abusing Communion. I don’t know her. But as an example, even if she seemed to be the kindest person on earth, the lady could be said to be abusing the Lord by her attitude if nothing else. She does not humble herself to learn the faith and her God and become a member, but feels entitled to receive our Lord anyway? That lack of humility is very displeasing to the Lord. And who knows what sins she has.
Cradle, I found a statement about Priests as grooms. “The Church is Christ’s bride, whom he loves because he has gained her by his blood and made her glorious, holy and without blemish…that is why we can never ignore the fact that Christ is a man and therefore, unless one is to disregard the importance of symbolism for the economy of Revelation, it must be admitted that in actions that demand the character of ordination and in which Christ Himself is represented…his rolemust be taken by a man.” Inter insigniores paragraphs 30-31. The article states Christ as groom comes from St. Paul 2 Cor 11:2, Ephesians 5:22-23 and St. John Jn 3:29 and Rev19:7,9 and the synoptic Gospels. So it was understood from the beginning. Talking to a friend after Mass who is my “Catholic encyclopedia” she said she learned, as she was researching making a vestment for a priest, that the priestly garments are wedding garments! They reflect the wedding garments of Jesus time.

Posted by Verity on Wednesday, Apr, 6, 2011 5:12 AM (EDT):

Pam, You are right to say that the commandments did not exist yet, However, God had made the promise of descendants to Abram and Abram believe God and that belief had been reckoned to him as righteousness. That is why God changed Abram’s name to Abraham (exalted father). At that time no man seemed to have had a relationship with God. There was something about Abram that caused God to talk to him and tell him to abandon his father’s house. Perhaps it was the monogamous relationship? So when Abraham wondered when God was going to do this miracle, Sarah did undermine God’s plan by giving Abraham a woman to whom he was not even attracted. God’s covenant with Abraham was the beginning of a new effort on God’s part to pull mankind out of the sinful culture into which mankind often sinks. God does establish monogamy in Genesis 2:24.
You may be interested to know that the Covenant between God and men in the Traditional Jewish religion is just between God and men, not women. I know because I have read an old Jewish Prayer Book and the prayers said are for the Congregation and their wives and children. Women are part of the community, but not the congregation. The sign of the covenant is circumcision and that is for men only. This is probably the basis for the rule against women priests.
I might add here that adultery was a very serious sin in the time of Abraham. The righteous Abimelech was afraid to sleep with a woman who was another man’s wife because he believed God would punish him.
I do not make up history Pam. I majored in history and I know when people are making it up. That is why I am trying to correct you by citing concrete examples.
As for the communion issues. If a priest is taking communion and also abusing boys and bribing them with offering money and he tells a little old lady organist that she is not qualified to take communion because she is not Catholic, just how is that baptized little old lady abusing our Lord?

Posted by Pam on Monday, Apr, 4, 2011 12:45 PM (EDT):

Verity, I will answer to God if I DON’T say something to Cradle. She by the way responded to my concern and didn’t seem put off. Why do you make trouble where there is none? I didn’t tell her not to receive communion. Again with your negative spin. I told her IF she didn’t believe that Jesus Christ was truly present… that is very different from what you say. I don’t know the woman you are speaking about. There is alot of brokenness in the world. There are some really viscious people out there. Some are definitely an occasion of sin for a given individual and this woman seems to be one to you. I know there are some in my own life. So avoid them. Don’t look for trouble. Go about doing good and remember Mother Theresa said what we do to the least we do to Jesus Christ. To you she is “the least”. As to who receives communion, the Church has decided that. Obedience is very dear to God. If the priest knew that someone was not Catholic, I hope he tried to get them into RCIA. But they should not be receiving the Lord from a Catholic priest until they fully understand what they are saying by receiving Him and they can’t know that without instruction. They are among other things saying they are in unity with the Catholic Church. You are labelling again about those who uphold Church teaching, calling them “viscious”. Some would just call them “faithful”. You are making your own rules Verity as it suits you because someone seems like a good guy they don’t need to follow the rules? God loves order. Look at creation. He is not an anarchist. Certainly the greatest virtue is charity and true charity looks to the true good of the other. Bringing the organist to the Catholic faith and not exposing the Lord to possible abuse is true charity.

As to family, Sarah didn’t break any commandments. They didn’t exist yet, remember? Abraham is our FATHER in faith. If God chose her to be the mother of Isaac God must have REALLY messed up. He ended up being an awesome son somehow and Abraham LOVED Sarah so much that it is mentioned in the account a couple of times. You are trying to rewrite history and I am going to point it out. As to going off to do something when your family needs to be cared for, well families work together. If someone has to do something they cooperate. It’s a lesson in true charity for the whole family. The attitude of self-pity, “Poor me, mommy went out and I have to help with dinner. If she was here I could be doing what I want.” is not Christian or healthy. “Go mom, have a great time. See you when you get back!” That is Christian and healthy. Certainly there can be excesses, but that’s what communication is about. Use words. Again you are making your own history with the apostles. They left everything to follow Jesus. There were some women disciples who were among the followers who did the women’s chores expected of women in those days. The problem with the family first thinking is that it is really a “Get God and His Rules Out of my Family” thinking. But when He is in a marriage it is stronger. When He is first, real love is put ahead of selfish desire or human weakness. People grow in healthy ways and see whole people, not just sexes. They see souls and bodies. They see gifts and faults and they love through it all.

Posted by Verity on Monday, Apr, 4, 2011 8:04 AM (EDT):

Pam, as for your comment about the cult of Family First, you are way off the mark. Jesus said that if you love God you will keep His Commandments. Therefore if you break the Commandments in order to advance the status of your family…. for example, stealing for them, lying to advance them, taking sexual advantage of people you are not married to in order to have children etc…..you are not putting God’s rules first. It is a grievous sin to go off and do something else when your family needs to be cared for. That is why the apostles traveled in family groups. As a matter of fact, a monastery or convent becomes a family for the people who join them. God created us to live in family groups. There are very few hermits.

Posted by Verity on Monday, Apr, 4, 2011 7:46 AM (EDT):

Sorry, Pam, you are out of order to tell anyone, especially Cradle Catholic, whether or not she should received Holy Communion. I am sorry that I was not clear. It has been my experience that people who do try to tell others whether to receive communion are often the most grievous sinners of all. I cite my former friend who was a malicious gossip. She lied about people to others. She betrayed people’s trust. She used people for her own pleasure. She lead an attack against her own parish priest because he had asked a woman to take a wailing baby out of the church so that he could preach his sermon. No, I did not wreck her family life. She had already done that herself before I even met her. I tried to be a friend to her because she was so lonely. After a while I realized what harm she was doing to others and why no one could stand to be around her.
My second example is the priest I met while visiting the RC parish in my hometown. He wrote a letter to the organist at the old folks home and told her that he must enforce the no communion rule on her because she was not a Roman Catholic. She was very hurt. A few years later he was sentenced to 16 years in prison for abusing an altar boy and stealing money from the collection plate. What kind of Rule was he keeping? I hope that the organist lived to see him humiliated.
I frankly think that anyone who discerns the body and blood of Christ and will take communion with respect for Him and is in a state of grace by having kept the 10 Commandments, should be able to receive communion. Such a person believes in Christ and Christ is there to help that person. A person’s actions really are more important than their theological beliefs.
Surely someone such as Cradle Catholic knows the rules of her church and does not need anyone to question her eligibility for communion. I will again state my own experience to be clear: the people I have known who criticized others for taking communion turned out to be some of the most vicious people I have ever met. And I am giving only two examples here. I have known others, and I stay out of their churches.
My purpose is not venom, it is to shake people out of their delusions. People who do not obey the 10 Commandments are not followers of Jesus.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Apr, 3, 2011 11:24 PM (EDT):

Verity, You are the only person denigrating. You are denigrating Sarah, you are denigrating “your friend” who has nothing to do with this discussion, you are denigrating a Saint! You are just spewing venom. Some early Christians did believe Jesus would return soon. They weren’t living in a fantasyland as you propose. They were living in a new reality. The reality of God the Fathers true plan for mankind. I think I see what your problem is. You say your friend attacked you for staying at home with your family. And you say she destroyed her family(gossip) (or did people like you destroy it with your venom?) And you mention Perpetua giving up her child because she was delusional. So putting the pieces together it appears you are part of the cult of Family First, God second, third or lower. The greatest commandment is to love God with your WHOLE heart,soul, mind and body. It is only in obeying this commandment that we can live any of the other ones. Unless He is our reason for everything we can’t love our neighbor (they have too many flaws - like you see when you say Churches full of viscious people like Sarah). We can’t keep any of the commandments because it is Him living in us that is the ONLY reason it is possible to keep them. Your friend may be under attack for doing things in the right order. And you can’t see that. To you she is destroying. To Him she is a true disciple. Christ said His followers would be persecuted. You are throwing up roadblocks and slandering to make sure that putting God first doesn’t happen it seems. Jesus said our love would grow cold. Mother Theresa spoke of the poverty of Western Civilization. Our priorities are off, our lives are a mess and we need to repent. You have very strong feelings against that woman. I will pray for you.
Cradle, “Just because he’s ordained?” Exactly because he’s ordained. That is who the charism has been handed on to. Christ is behind every priest no matter how vile not for the sake of the priest but for the sake of the parishioners. The priest is the only one needed and the only one capable of changing the bread and wine into the body of Christ. Still don’t trust the statistics and will check into it. As to Sarah, you two are in your own world. Sorry, such a negative spin. See my replies to Verity.

Pam - Jesus said, “This is My Body. This is My Blood. Do this in memory of Me.” = I do as He commanded, and I can most definitely say, “Amen” when the priest or Eucharistic Minister says, “The Body of Christ”. In non=Catholic churches that have Communion, it is also very reverent, and they advise church-goers to NOT partake of Communion, if they do not believe in what they are doing, and if they are not a believing Christian.

I really do appreciate your warning to me, and the opportunity to share what I believe about Communion with you. I do believe the host is Jesus’ Precious Body. I do not believe that it is ONLY the priest that is needed, in order for Jesus to be present in Communion. So I put my faith in Jesus. I do not put my faith in a priest that was merely ordained. God knows all hearts, including that of the priests, and bishops, and popes for that matter. It is Jesus that is the Main Thing.

Regarding the statistics of homosexual men in the priesthood: it may even be 50% of priests and bishops. I used Tom Plante’s conservative figure of 22-45%. Plante (a church insider, and a professor at a Jesuit University) gave the statistics in an article last fall.

About Sarah and Abraham, I agree with Verity. That’s why we need to read the Bible in context, and most importantly, in full. The fullness of the faith is to have read ALL of the Bible! <grin> I mean well -

Posted by Verity on Sunday, Apr, 3, 2011 6:04 PM (EDT):

Pam, Why do you persist in denigrating the victims of powerful people?
I stated before that Christian scholars of all denominations have recognized that the early Christians thought Jesus was going to return in their lifetimes and that it was not necessary for them to do any social justice or even raise their own children. This was actually a harmful delusion. St. Perpetua gave her baby to someone else to take care of when she went into the arena and took her own life for Christ. Read a really scholarly account of her story. All of these people were living in a fantasy land.
And, as for my friend, she got people to trust her, confide in her, and then broke her word to them. She was a malicious old hag gossip who enjoyed hurting people while defending every rule that she could hurt people with. This woman had destroyed her own family relationships and then went about trying to destroy others. I have never seen such evil. I am telling you that people in churches are very vicious, just like Sarah.
I also met a RC priest who told me that I should join the true church. A few years later he got sentenced to 16 years for sexually abusing an altar boy and stealing from the offering plates.
If you are saying that God wanted Ishmael to be an expletive of a man, then you are believing in predestination. That is a heresy. God does not create junk.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Apr, 3, 2011 5:14 PM (EDT):

Verity, You don’t want to know the truth I am afraid. Ishmael would be a wild ass of a MAN. That is what God wanted, ordained. Your beloved Paul talks about slaves being obedient to their masters, so again, you are being dishonest with yourself. Slavery is now recognized as sinful in our country, but it wasn’t in the time of Christ. And yes, I am very serious about what I say to Cradle. You are blinded by your humanist view Verity. Sarah was dear to God and she spoke to Hagar before giving her to Abraham and it was not what it would be today. God looks at hearts. You judge like man. Why do you sin by telling me about your “friend” and putting her down. What has that to do with this discussion. If her inability to tell fact from fiction means she disagreed with you then she could tell fact from fiction very well.

Posted by Verity on Sunday, Apr, 3, 2011 7:00 AM (EDT):

Pam, It is amazing that you who cannot discern the mortal sins of slavery and the sexual exploitation of the vulnerable and that you are now lecturing Cradle Catholic that her perhaps incorrect belief is perhaps a mortal sin. Do you care more about correct belief than you do about correct behavior? Remember that Abraham and Sarah were also liars.
Cradle Catholic’s statistics are on the conservative side. She cited her reference.
Ishmael would be a wild donkey man, that is the correct translation. Wonder why? Most boys go through that stage. Oh those happy polygamous adulterous families where some children are valued more than others. Remember that Ishmael was no longer important to Sarah after she had her own child, the child God had promised her. Remember Sarah laughed at God’s promise and then lied to God about it. Now Sarah wanted to abandon the people she had exploited. If Sarah had been a righteous woman, she would not have doubted God’s promise in the first place and she would have treated her slave like a daughter. She would not have pimped her to her husband. Get real.
The last I read is that the Church is against surrogate motherhood and such activity is considered intrinsically evil.
God has nothing against logic. Isaiah 1:18.
Now back to the married priesthood: Perhaps if RC Bishops were selected according to Biblical Principles in reference to having been the husband of only one wife, they would have had the experience of being real fathers instead of theoretical or spiritual fathers and they might have been more informed on how to protect children from predators. Remember that according to the accurate statistics 2/3 of these celibate bishops here in the USA covered up and enabled the crimes of their priests against children. Really shameful.
BTW I used to have a friend who believed every doctrine and every rule of her church. She took communion with a beatific smile on her face the likes of which I had never seen before. (I went to church with her a few times.) But she could not keep any friends because she could not tell fact from fiction. She imagined untrue things about other people, and she slandered them. She insulted me because I put the care of my family before my social life. It became obvious to me that she enjoyed hurting people. Eventually everyone had to get away from her. Her beliefs are perfect, but her actions sinful. Maybe without the graces she would have been even worse. She was self righteous in the extreme.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Apr, 2, 2011 10:34 PM (EDT):

Cradle, 1. Your statistics may or may not be true, but seem very exagerated. Regardless, God does give an abundance of Grace,but as with anything else He does, we have to use our free will to take care of it and some priests are not careful with the graces they receive. They need our prayers as well and doubtless fewer people are praying and therefore fewer are probably praying for priests.
2.Priests aren’t denied anything. This is something you have made up and use as an argument to try to make matrimony superior to Holy Orders. You are wrong on this Cradle, sorry, but you don’t seem to be oen to the truth.
3.Sarah’s actions were known to God and He told Abraham to allow it. You two are butchering that story. God ordained that Ishmael would be a “wild ass of a man” and that He would make a great nation of him so don’t go blaming Sarah. Reading the Bible on your own and coming to these extreme conclusions and not listening to sound teaching is leading you astray.
4.Cradle it is blasphemous for a Catholic to deny the True Presence of Jesus in the Eucharist. Receiving the Eucharist feeling as you do would be a sin. The priest or Eucharistic Minister holds up the Eucharist and says “Body of Christ” to which you are supposed to respond, ‘Amen’ meaning you DO BELIEVE that what you receive IS the Body of Christ. This is grave sin. If you know it is grave sin and you continue to receive it could well be mortal sin. No priest is commanding God. God has already commanded. He said “Do this in remembrance of Me.” He comes of His own accord out of His great desire for our salvation. You need to find an orthodox holy priest or you need to stop receiving until you go to confession and work through this. There is one God and three persons. The Holy Spirit is one person. He is a gift, an advocate, He will remind us of everything Jesus has taught us. Jesus is another. He is the Bread of Life, the Cup of Eternal Salvation and He is truly present in the Eucharist. “My body is real food, my blood is real drink.” “Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.”

Pam, you wrote, “The graces of a priest are not only sufficient but generously bestowed to help them in their VOCATION. Christ disagrees with your view. He said whoever leaves spouse or children for me will find 100 times as many now and in the world to come. They HAVE real CHILDREN. Every priest should KNOW this. You just are off base on this.”

Cradle’s reply-
1) If God gives generous graces to priests to help them with their vocation, how come so many of them fail? Not just the 3-5% that molested children, and that have psychological problems, but the upwards of 50% that are having sex at any given time, with women, or with other men. The church’s own statistic (Tom Plante, PhD.) is that 22-45% of priests are homosexual, this, while in a population, less than 5% are homosexual. And what about the number of alcoholics in the priesthood?
That has been a problem, for decades. How about the bishops that covered up known pedophiles, allowing them to abuse unsuspecting people?
Where is God’s generous grace in all of their vocations?

2) Marriage is designed to be a covenant. Men and women are given sanctifying grace, allowing them to get closer to Jesus and to each other. This is what priests are DENIED. Priests lack emotional maturity that comes from normal everyday family life. Knowing what God thinks about the COVENANTAL aspect of marriage, in *no* way does Jesus either suggest or demand a husband abandon his wife and family. If He did, can you just imagine how many children (and wives) would HATE Jesus for it? My father died prior to my birth - I resented God, for years. It was also difficult for me to wrap my mind around a ‘loving Father’, with no good example of what that looks like, in my own life. Further, the Magesterium (correctly) calls for marriage between one man and one woman, and while God hates divorce - if one has enough money and clout, one can pay for an annulment from the church fairly easily. But GOD HATES DIVORCE and Marriage is a COVENANT. It’s not a throw-away thing.
Jesus could easily have chosen only single men. He did not. Paul could have written that Timothy and Titus ordain only single men. He did not.

3) Verity is correct that Sarah’s actions were not God-ordained, and what she did, by “giving” Hagar to Abraham, has had negative consequences to this day. God was gracious to Sarah and to Hagar too, but Sarah really blew it.

4) New Observer is correct that no priest “brings us Jesus”. It was some dead saint that wrote that Jesus “obeys” the priest, and that He enters into the Host, based on the priest’s command. It’s blasphemous.
Pam, you either have the Holy Spirit inside of you, when you arrive at Mass, ready to worship God and give thanks for His Soverein Hand over your life, and for ‘sealing’ you with the Holy Spirit, forever… OR you do not have the Holy Spirit at all. No amount of eating hosts or drinking the cup will fill you with any more of Jesus. When you have the Holy Spirit, He never, ever leaves you. Please: read Romans.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Apr, 2, 2011 8:03 AM (EDT):

I didn’t say by law. I said under God. You don’t seem to really be seeking God’s way Verity. You are trying to win an argument for a married priesthood and using human logic, not spiritual truth to defend it. God doesn’t need man. God is all powerful and His grace is greater than any human longing or desire or temptation. That is just a basic truth. God bless.

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Apr, 2, 2011 4:49 AM (EDT):

Pam, There were no Jews at that time. If anything, Abraham was the first Jew. Abraham, whose name means ‘exalted father,” becomes the father of many nationsand those nations are Islamic, Jewish, and Christian.
Just because something is not prohibited by law does not mean that it is not sinful. Abortion is now allowed by law. That does not make it a moral thing to do.
The Covenant between God and Abraham is established in Genesis 17. God says to Abram. “I am God Almighty, walk before me and be blameless.” Blameless is sometimes translated “perfect, upright.” Then God changes Abram’s name to Abraham. Later God will give the children of Israel commandments to follow. Those commmandments specified that slaves had to be set free every seven years. God is trying to stop the practice of slavery.
Keeping God’s commandments brings holiness.

I know a RC priest who wears his mother’s wedding ring; thereby honoring the marriage of his parents. Another priest who was related to neighbors of ours had his mother’s wedding ring set into his communion chalice. He, however, eventually got married.
Jesus first public act of ministry was the changing of water into wine at the marriage at Cana. By the time of Jesus most marriages in Israel were between one man and one woman.

The books of the Bible were written so that Salvation History would be recorded. Salvation History is also the history of righteous living. Righteous living is the keeping of God’s Commandments. Violation of God’s Commandments leaves a person in a state of mortal sin.
Slavery and sexual exploitation today are mortal sins. Even if not mortal sins at the time of Abraham, this kind of activity was neither physically nor mentally healthy. Two women sharing a man sexually is sure to cause problems and is not something that Jesus would bless. One man and one woman in a marriage is the will of God. I cannot think of any happy examples of polygamy or concubinage in the Bible. That should teach us something.

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Apr, 1, 2011 11:31 PM (EDT):

Pam, I appreciate your response. I thought when His Spirit comes upon you, Jesus is now present. Is the Eucharist a different grace than His Spirit already living inside you?

Posted by Pam on Friday, Apr, 1, 2011 9:21 PM (EDT):

New Observer, Christ truly present body, blood, soul and divinity I only receive in the Eucharist. Receiving Him in the Eucharist brings grace I would not have if I didn’t receive Him. God is everywhere, but connecting to Him everywhere requires growing in grace. He gave Himself to us to feed us and nourish us and when you take advantage of this incredible gift you definitely notice a difference in grace when you go without Him. Hard to explain. You have to experience it. Are you a practicing Catholic?

Posted by Pam on Friday, Apr, 1, 2011 9:08 PM (EDT):

Verity, The Bible books were written as moral stories to tell us the consequences of sin? Don’t know where you got that. You have such a sad macabre take on history and the story of Sarah. She did nothing prohibited by God to the Jews of the time. Hagar however was disrespectful of her mistress when she conceived. Abraham loved Sarah. Hagar was a gift to him so that he would have a child. It was painful for Sarah to give that gift, but that’s how great her love was. Sadly, Hagar was witchy about it so the outcome is not that surprising. The story isn’t about counting supposed sins and seeing if everybody got what was coming to them. It is about God fulfilling His promise to Abraham to make his descendants as numerous as the stars and isn’t it amazing how His will was accomplished? And God was not worried about Sarah sending Hagar away so why should you be? He has counted the hairs on our heads. Sarah, Hagar, you , me - we will all be taken care of.

Posted by Verity on Friday, Apr, 1, 2011 6:24 AM (EDT):

Pam, Please reread the stories of Abraham and Sarah. You obviously do not know the purposes for which the Bible Books were written. They teach us moral lessons by showing us the consequences of sin. It is amazing to me that you cannot recognize mortal sin when it is described to you. First of all, Sarah did not have a concubine. A concubine is a woman who lives with a man as a mistress or as a second class wife. Sarah had a slave which she put up for sexual exploitation by her husband with the idea that any children Hagar might have would be Sarah’s for the raising. If Sarah had treated Hagar fairly she would have allowed her to contract an honorable marriage with a man of her choice. How would you like to be told to have sex with a man so that your children can be claimed by somebody else? Hagar’s virtue was not Sarah’s to give away. That is the sin of slavery.
In Genesis 21:10 Sarah tells Abraham to cast out Hagar and Ishmael. Sarah couldn’t care less how much they would suffer. She has used them for her own convenience and now that she no longer needs them she will dispose of them.
In Genesis 21:ll Abraham is grieved by this because of his son. Note that Abraham had no feelings for the woman he used.
In Genesis 21:13 God tells Abraham that He will take care the son and make a nation from Ishmael. So Abraham had God’s comfort when he put them out in the desert with just bread and water.
Next read Genesis chapter 20 and see how both Abraham and Sarah lied to Abimelech about their relationship. That is called bearing false witness, a mortal sin.
The value of Bible narratives is that they do NOT whitewash or sugar coat history. They tell us how sinful our ancestors were and what the consequences were. They show us how God put our ancestors on the right moral path and how he wants us to stay on that path.

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 9:06 PM (EDT):

Pam, you said: “They can take ordinary bread and wine and bring Christ to us.” When did Christ ever leave you that you need someone to bring Him back?

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 8:56 PM (EDT):

Cradle, When you make statements like priests are *denied* that grace you lose all credibility. Priests receive incredible graces far beyond any a married couple receive. They can take ordinary bread and wine and bring Christ to us. They can give absolution ust to mention a couple. The graces of a priest are not only sufficient but generously bestowed to help them in their VOCATION. Christ disagrees with your view. He said whoever leaves spouse or children for me will find 100 times as many now and in the world to come. They HAVE real CHILDREN. Every priest should KNOW this. You just are off base on this.

Pam - Thank you for offering to research the specifics about the belief that priests are married to the church, how it happens, priests formation about it, and about how we lay people are to be a part of it.

I agree with you that holiness does not require marriage. But there is sanctifying grace that comes with marriage. A single priest is *denied* that grace. Further, with marriage comes a lifetime committment to one person, to one family, and a priest is stationed at a parish for perhaps 6-12 years, then he’s moved on.

If he were in a real marriage, and if he had a real child, ages 6-12 are the most critical times in his child’s life. There is NO getting out of his responsibility, when one is a REAL father.

Looks to me like Verity has been a responsible Godfather/mother to his/her godchildren, and has been in it for the long haul - unlike our average priest, that moves on, and is not truly a “father” or a “husband” to anyone, long-term. He’s here today - and gone tomorrow.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 7:24 PM (EDT):

Verity, What can I say when you slam Sarah like that. I have read the Bible. Abraham loved her dearly. She, OUT OF LOVE FOR HIM, gave her concubine to him so that he would have an heir. She didn’t cause him to doubt anything. She did doubt a woman of her age could have a child and God chided her. Hagai resented that Sarah had the child. God told Abraham to LET Sarah send Hagai away. You are just wrong. All your historical interpretation is poisonous like that. I pray for you. How can you not see that Fr. Cutie’s actions have caused sin and division. It is scandalous on its face. This discussion right here is part of the division. His bad example leads others to doubt grace, to disobedience and to forsake Church teaching for their own opinions and feelings of the moment.
New Observer: When I said some priests need to be removed I was stating my own opinion because of my own experiences, but our role in the removal of priests is to report known abuse and to pray. God does have a plan. If homosexuality has already overtaken our priesthood, perhaps we should pay more attention to the signs of the times, because before Christ comes the desolating abomination will sit on the throne of Peter.
Cradle, I will research the priest as married to the Church, but if you notice, many priests wear a band on their wedding ring finger. It has always been explained to me that way. Holiness does not require marriage. Grace makes all things possible.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 7:04 PM (EDT):

Born Again Cradle Catholic, Thank you for the information. Now I remember that in a RC marriage, the couple take vows before the priest who is a witness. In an Eastern Orthodox Church, the priest marries the couple and the duration of the marriage is considered eternal without the ending “until death us do part.” I was once told by a friend who is a Roman Catholic Permanent Deacon that in the Early Church through sometime after the Middle Ages, the Bishop was considered married to the diocese and that early bishops did not change dioceses as that was regarded as bigamy. My friend had a degree in medieval history.
He and his wife are very good catholics and very morally upright. He would make a wonderful priest.
However, I have been bothered by some catholics I have met that consider sexual sin to be “little slip, here and there” They had absolutely no remorse for the hurt they caused to other people. As a matter of fact they were so sadistic in their treatment of others that I had to get away from them. One of them broke up a Protestant marriage, got the husband to convert to Catholic and then get an annulment and marry her in a Catholic ceremony.
In reference to JFK, the women are Mary Pinchot Meyer, who was the sister of Ben Bradlee’s second wife. Bradlee’s third wife, Sally Quinn, is the religion editor of the Washington Post and she caused a bruhaha a couple years ago when she took communion at Tim Russert’s funeral and then wrote about it in her newspaper column. The other woman is Judith Campbell Exner. Both women have biographies on the Wikipedia.
That was really a cheap shot for Jackie Kennedy’s confessor to make money off of her privacy. It sort of reminds me of the Archbishop of Canterbury who gave premarital counseling to Prince Charles and Lady Diana and then turned around and told the newspaper exactly what he had advised them. They were very angry at that invasion of their privacy.
I have advised my godchildren never to do anything that they would be ashamed to tell their parents and that the right to privacy is a myth. I made a big mistake with my godchildren in that I only read Bible stories with them. I should have taken them to an Evangelical Sunday School where those lessons would have been reinforced. They were too young to be interested in liturgical worship services, and not they do not now go to church. I beg God to forgive me for the mistake.

Verity- you wrote, “I would still like to know where it is made clear to a man in the RCC that he is marrying the Church when he is takes the celibacy vow or is ordained. I do know that these are two different ceremonies and that the celibacy vow comes before ordination. So where does he say that the Church is his wife? Or did someone make that up?”

Cradle’s reply-
That is an EXCELLENT QUESTION deserving of an answer. A marriage is a COVENANT, not to be taken lightly. If a priest is MARRIED to the Church, precisely where in the formation process AND the ordination ceremony is that specified so WE KNOW what we’re doing, as Church, and THE PRIEST knows too?

In a covenant marriage, VOWS are said to each other. But I believe a priest only PROMISES celibacy & obedience just to HIS BISHOP, and to the successors of his bishop. A priest does NOT take a VOW of celibacy to God.

Rather, a priest promises HIS BISHOP he will remain unmarried - that’s why when they have sex (with women, other men and even children) they just confess it to “brother-priests” that have their own secrets, and move on.

All they must NOT DO is to ever marry a woman, entering into a COVENANTAL RELATIONSHIP WITH HER. Short-term, slam-bam, thank you mam, with no long-term committment or responsiblitity taken in relationships is forgivable. It’s so common, they call it a “lapse”. I had no idea JFK had so many lapses. He could have been a priest.

While we’re on the topic of the Kennedy’s and being Catholic, it always bothered me that Jackie’s priest confessor wrote a book about her. So much for our having “Spiritual Advisors”. If we become famous, all our innermost thoughts go viral. That’s the same thing that happened with Mother Teresa, I think - with “friends” like that, who needs enemies?

At least with what Fr. Cutie’s been through, it would most likely make him a more compassionate and forgiving man, and someone that could identify with the faults and failings of others. He won’t be a surface deep friend to another man, and his wife would have compassion on other women. If they both keep their noses in the Bible, and continue to learn from it, they’ll do fine, and both will be better people as a result of all of this. Mandated celibacy should end.

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 12:52 PM (EDT):

Pam, you wrote: “The priesthood is not just a job. Some priests NEED to be removed.”

Thank you for saying some priests NEED to be removed. Whose job is it to do that? The Bishops. So why is this not happening? Also, some Bishops also NEED to be removed. So why is this not happening? Because the laity has a distorted view of these guys. We paint halos around them and consider them closer to God than we are. They most assuredly are not. They are “just men” and do not walk on water. For many, it IS “just a job” considering the quality and time of their homily preparation. The same applies to those Bishops who are often political appointments of the “old boys network” regardless of interpersonal, leadership and administrative skills. Once into their later years, most are nothing but caretakers and fundraisers who attend banquets and parish Spaghetti Feeds put on by your local Knights of Columbus council who worship these people more than the laity.

The current drip, drip and more dripping of shocking and scandalous revelations can be foisted back onto the doorstep of caretaker Bishops who allowed lesbian nuns to administer and admit poor candidates into our seminaries. These nuns and those nuns of the “new age” have been very calculating. They knew exactly what they were doing. And many are still running the program. Lamenting that vocations have been depressed over the decades is incorrect. What straight man would subject himself to homosexual advances by fellow seminarians. They end up leaving. We now are reaping what we have sown.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 11:49 AM (EDT):

Pam, I did not say the flower children were Christians; I said they valued peace and love which are Christian values…certainly the opposites, war and hate are not Christian values. And, the government was involved in the Vietnam War and many soldiers went to Vietnam calling the people “gooks,” a term of hate. Quit distorting what people say. The flower children grew up just like everyone else. And, the root of secular society is the constitutional idea of the separation of church and state. If you do not like that, you should move to the country with the established religion of your choice.
Fr. Cutie acted more honorably that Augustine because Augustine could not stand up to his mother and do the right thing. Alleged St. Monica told him to send away the woman that he really loved so that he could marry a socially prominent woman. Monica was a baptized Christian, and she was valuing people according to what they could do for her and her son.
You need to go reread the story of Abraham in the Book of Genesis and get a better understanding of what is really going on there. God promised to make of Abraham’s seed a great nation. It was Abraham’s wife who browbeat Abraham into doubting God’s promise. She convinced him to take her slave into the bedroom in the hopes of him fathering a boy child. Hagar was a slave and was sexually exploited. When Hagar conceived, she became prideful and looked down her nose at her mistress. When God finally told Abraham of the approaching conception of Issac, Sarah heard Him and laughed. It is not proper to laugh at the promises of God. When Sarah did bear Issac she wanted Hagar and Ishmael thrown out of the camp to what was a sure death. God, however, saved them and also made of Ishmael a great nation. What really are the lessons of this story? I think: Slavery and concubinage are bad. (Hagar should have had her own husband). One should not laugh at God’s promises and then lie about it. God loves all his children and has different vocations for us. And if the flesh and the spirit were divided at that time, they were united in Jesus Christ. Please reread the early chapters of Genesis and tell me what you learn.
I have read the entire Bible and it is replete with stories of sin and the consequences of sin. I have seen sin hurt people. I have also seen that sinners are more often afraid of suffering in Hell than they are sorry for the hurt they have caused. The traditional Act of Contrition does not even mention the harm sin has caused to other people.
Exactly how has Fr. Cutie lead other souls astray and caused division?
Just what would you have him do to get right with the Lord?

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 9:06 AM (EDT):

Verity, Your moral compass is off. The flower children of the sixties were Christian? They renounced Christianity and made their own set of beliefs. They are the root of secular society. They were “insignificant”? Fr. Cutie acted as honorably as St. Augustine before Christ was in St. Augustines life! In other words he was as honorable as Augustine as a lost soul! The child is irrelevant to this because the child came after the sins we are talking about. In the Bible God talks about one of the early fathers and says one child, the child of the concubine was of the flesh. The other child, the child God gave to him for His work, was a child of the spirit. Yes the child is a life that should be loved and protected, but it doesn’t justify Fr. Cuties actions. You do not seem to realize the consequence of sin. Actions are sinful because of their consequences. In the sixties the consequence was loss of faith, anarchy, sexual sins of all sorts, disorder, the drug culture. There may have been sins in other generation, but not as widespread as the sixties- reaching every level of society and leading to greater sin within the priesthood as well. Fr. Cuties actions show a lack of obedience, character, self-control and more. Obedience is a trait very dear to God. His rebellion will lead many souls astray and has already caused division. The Church will answer for the priests it hides who have hurt parishioners and souls. The priesthood is not just a job. Some priests NEED to be removed.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 8:42 AM (EDT):

Pam, Your interpretation of history is also what you want to believe. I do not see any worse sin or suffering in the twentieth century or in the 1960s than at any time before. I lived in the 1960s, and I was NOT a flower child. They were so insignificant. They were, however, for peace and love which I thought were Christian values.
There have always been sex and drugs. There were opium dens in major cities in the 19th century. There was alcohol and tobacco everywhere and these are drugs which numb your intellect and cause hallucinations. Drunken men became such a problem that a constitutional amendment was passed to try and prevent them from getting the alcohol.
The middle ages in Europe had an astronomical rate of illegitimate births. Peasants had no defense from marauding knights who were just criminals in Christian armor.. Read about the harrowing of villages in England ordered by William the Conqueror. Yes, William the Conqueror repented and was given a church funeral. Were those socially inferior people he allowed to be killed really were not that important? What is important was that he repented, right?
Be grateful that you live in a country where you have the right to bear arms and defend yourself.
Read about the Inquisitons and the Witch burnings of the Renaissance.
Read about the Napoleonic battles for descriptions of mass slaughter. The main difference with the twentieth century is that there was more population to be killed and more efficient weapons with which to do the killings.
Finally, as I stated before, the worse filth in the 1960s was the JFK’s White House, not the dim witted flower children who just had to grow up and face reality. One of JFK’s mistresses was assassinated on the Georgetown Towpath. Another had his child aborted. Two of his prostitutes were part of the White House staff. We have plenty of eye witnesses to these events, and you may be able to read all about it when Jackie Kennedy’s memoirs are released. That will not happen until after the death of her daughter. It must be so bad that she did not want to embarrass children with it.
BTW, JFK probably did repent, he just could not control himself for some psychological reason. He got the last rites, and the time of his death was falsified on the death certificate so that Jackie could pretend that he was still alive when he got them.
Now when Fr. Cutie changed churches, the Episcopal Bishop stated that there was no warrant of scripture that mandated clerical celibacy and, if there was such, the RC Bishop should show it to him and that he would then make the appropriate corrections. Fr. Cutie evidently blames the RCC for mandating the celibacy that he was unable to keep. Remember that the Eastern Orthodox have seven sacraments and that Rome considers them valid and that the EO do not require celibacy.
We do not know what repentance Fr. Cutie had to effect before marrying in the Episcopal Church. I do know that the ECUSA has confession and absolution, so he may have gotten it there. If you believe that the sacraments in the ECUSA are invalid, then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it.
I would still like to know where it is made clear to a man in the RCC that he is marrying the Church when he is takes the celibacy vow or is ordained. I do know that these are two different ceremonies and that the celibacy vow comes before ordination. So where does he say that the Church is his wife? Or did someone make that up?
Father Cutie is no saint, and he handled his situation badly, but I do not see any reason to think that he did not act more honorably than Augustine when he married the woman and took responsibility for his child. How can anyone look at that child and say that she is not a gift from God?

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 31, 2011 12:10 AM (EDT):

Verity, You are casting everything in the light you want it to be seen in. You aren’t really seeking the truth, it seems. The twentieth century was handed over to Satan according to Pope Leo XIIIth vision. With the World Wars and the industrial revolution, the drugs and sexual revolution of the 60’s and the aids crisis and homosexual revolution and the increased materialism, we have lost our way and need to return to God. You are not remembering clearly if you think the flower children of the sixties felt guilty about their sex and drug habits. Regardless, Fr. Cutie was an ordained priest who took a vow of celibacy. He was an adult when he took it and he knew what it meant. He had many options if he felt he couldn’t be celibate. None that he chose were in keeping with Church teaching. That is not a judgement it is a fact. He is still in grave sin because of how he handled it and as a sister in Christ I would ask him to repent.
New Observer, You answer your own question. Look what happened to Adam and Eve - they were cast out of the garden of Eden. Hopefully we don’t all do what Fr. Cutie did. Hopefully we confess our sins and take responsibility for our actions. As to our “sin nature” as you call it, we are not like Adam and Eve, we are the new Adam and the new Eve redeemed by the blood of Christ and given grace to overcome sin. Fr. Cutie was tempted and fell. He has not admitted that according to the article or he admitted it and then blamed the Church. And now he has written a book justifying himself? He is not repentant. Sorry, but God did not go to the prodigal son. The prodigal son had to “come to his senses” and come back to the father. Fr. Cutie’s refusal to admit wrongdoing is grave sin and distances him from God. That isn’t judging Fr. Cutie. That is stating Church teaching.

Posted by Verity on Wednesday, Mar, 30, 2011 2:47 PM (EDT):

Can anyone tell me if there is any point in the ordination service where a priest takes the church as a wife? I understand that the celibacy vow is taken before ordination. Does the priest marry the church at that time?

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 30, 2011 12:11 PM (EDT):

Pam, you wrote: “Fr. Cutie had turned to Jesus and then sinned, denied his sin and then blamed the Church.”

Pam, we (Christians) all do this everyday in some shape or form. Our sin nature is no different than Adam and Eve. They had perfect union with God and then sinned. As for blame: “The serpent deceived me” was their rely. Fr. Cutie will deal with this on his own as we all must do ourselves.

Posted by Verity on Wednesday, Mar, 30, 2011 9:48 AM (EDT):

Pam, I believe the point here is that Rome’s mandate of clerical celibacy is not based on Scripture and that some people find this problematical. The mandate was definitely enforced by the mortal sin of selling wives into slavery and forcing priests to abandon their children. In the Old Testament God is portrayed as married to Israel; in the New Testament Christ is married to the Church. IMO extending this concept to the priesthood has caused a lot of harm.
Have you ever heard of a minor seminary? I am told that they do not exist in the RCC anymore because they were unhealthy places for priestly formation. I once knew a man who had been placed in such by his parents when he was 13 years old. He was programmed into becoming a priest and when he decided he wanted to get married, his paperwork to return him to lay status took so long that he finally went to the courthouse. I know for a fact that his marriage has been happy for 40 years, so I think we can consider it made in heaven.
Cradle Catholic and I are not dredging up filth. We are trying to find out what is really going on in church and do something about reforming it if need be. I think that is what everyone is suppose to do. If one does not know what is going on, one is living in a fantasy land, which can be very dangerous.
I do very well remember the 1960s, but, having studied history, I do not think that decade to have been anymore naughty than the 1920s, the 1940s or perhaps even the “gay” 1890s. In the 60s people were still embarrassed by their sins and wanted them covered up. I cannot remember anyone of the caliber of Rielle Hunter or Monica Lewinsky who do not think they have done anything wrong. In point of fact, no one was more promiscuous in the 1960s than JFK, who grew up in the 30s and 40s and who learned his womanizing ways from his father who grew up earlier. His activities were not reported by the press until the decade after his presidency. If such had been known beforehand, he definitely would not have been elected. In those days a person such as Newt Gingrich would not have even tried to run for public office.
In regard to Augustine, his womanizing and illegitimate child came before baptism because in those days people put off baptism until they were old enough to control themselves and not likely to sin at alarming rates anymore (compare the Emperor Constantine). However, Augustine’s mother, the alleged saint Monica, was baptized, and she forced him to put away the concubine that he loved when she arranged a socially advantageous marriage for him in Milan. Since this arranged marriage was to a 14 year old girl, it was not possible to perform it right away so Augustine took another concubine to get him through the inactive time. Fortunately for the girl, the marriage got called off and Augustine returned to North Africa. My point here is that Augustine and his mother appear to be social climbers from the ancient world who did not do the honorable thing which would have been holy matrimony with the woman he loved.
As for Thomas Merton, he allegedly had an illegitimate child in the 1930s which would have been before he became a monk. He did, however, have a romantic relationship with a nurse whom he met in the hospital when he was a monk. He wrote romantic poetry for her, but the exact course of the relationship is disputed by his friends and his biographer to the point where, since I have not read the actual biography, I would say, there is such uncertainty that I should not have mentioned him at all.
After having reread the short biography of Fr. Cutie which Mr. Akin has provided above, it seems that Fr. Cutie, although a very successful priest, was thinking that he had made a mistake in taking celibacy vows. Unlike Augustine, Fr. Cutie did not have the luxury of delaying baptism and ordination until he was old enough to control himself better. He was already thinking of changing to a church with rules that he could live with when he lost control completely. God has blessed this couple with a baby girl! His wife’s son now has a stepfather. I am sure that the Episcopal church can annul marriages and regularize new ones as well as the RCC can. Even Newt Gingrich got that and he was a deadbeat dad too. If Fr. Cutie left the RCC, how can he be harming it? It is time to let God do the judging, pray for the well being of the Cutie family, put our hands to the plow and stop looking back. As Dear Abby once wrote “The baby was on time, the wedding was late. Forget about it.”

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Mar, 29, 2011 11:14 PM (EDT):

Cradle, You don’t seem to understand the difference between being a sinner and not believing in Jesus Christ and being a sinner WHEN you say you believe in Jesus Christ but refusing to confess or admit your sin. Serial killers et al who came to Christ are repentant sinners who see their sin and repent and turn to Jesus. Fr. Cutie had turned to Jesus and then sinned, denied his sin and then blamed the Church, left the faith and married the woman he was not free to marry and became a priest in another faith before he was properly dispensed to do so. It is is night and day. Two very different things. He rejected Jesus healing (confession) and the teaching of the Church. He was married to the Church even though you may not like to hear that. Every priest is. You do not seem inclined to admit you are wrong about the Holy Spirit working in the Church and its authority to mandate celibate priesthood so I won’t beat a dead horse. God bless.

Pam- Go to your library and get the book: “The Dark Journey to Faith, the life of Jeffrey Dahmer” - he, Son of Sam, and a bunch of other people that committed hienous crimes, and that were in prison for LIFE, with NO POSSIBLITY of ever getting out, just read the Bible and saw themselves in it, repented, and were baptized and saved. Dahmer was killed in prison, about 3 months after coming to Christ. Son of Sam is still in prison, and he has a prison ministry, helping other lifers.

We are ALL sinners. Sin is sin, against a holy God. There’s no mortal, venial, white sin, grey sin, black sin. Sin is missing the mark, and we have ALL missed the mark. Whether like they did, they killed someone, or whether we “kill” someone’s spirit, and put them down, it is missing the mark. Do you remember Jesus said even if we are angry with someone, it is sin?

If Fr. Cutie is reading this blog, I pray he picks up the Bible, and reads it- and that he is the BEST husband and father he can be. We all have until our last breath to get right with God. In the meantime, we are to help each other, and not to be stumbling blocks for them. The best thing we can do is to direct everyone to God’s Word. It is the ONLY trustworthy information, and it is time-tested, and it causes UNITY for all Christians. We need unity, under Truth. God’s truth.

Fr. Cutie had no “first wife” = I know you mean the church. But if Fr. Cutie is a believer in Jesus, he is IN the Church, and he had a ROLE to play IN the Church, but he’s not married TO the Church. Only Jesus is the Groom, and married to the Church, figuratively- meaning we are one.
We are all His Bride, including Fr. Cutie, given he is a born-again believer.

Marriage is a covenant. When the Magesterium drops the insistence on disobeying God’s specific qualifications for men in ordained ministry, we will have good role models for marriage, with priests, bishops and popes, and their wives and families to show the rest of us how to maintain the marriage covenant successfully.

Verity- thank you for your kindness to me. It’s been 10 years that I have been speaking out against clergy sexual abuse - and not only of children (even in Third World Countries, among most people using children is frowned upon) but also the abuse of women by priests - that is most common throughout the world, and even the abuse of other men, those that are coerced into same-sex behavior, for one reason or another.

Really all that sets me apart from most Catholics is that I have read the Bible, in its proper context, and I believed what it said. Since most Catholics are now aware of what Scripture says, it’s almost a kind of disregard for God, and His Word, a defiant insistence upon Tradition (from the year 1139AD) and of obeying the Magesterium when it misleads us about mandated celibacy, that’s a practice that could change tomorrow.

I agree with you that celibacy CAN be profitable, but I too, am strongly opposed to it being mandated. Plus it just is not working. That the Magesterium is not addressing it, after ALL the issues we’ve had in our church, and the lack of trust for clergymen by most Catholics, even for those priests that may be honorable (although they are likely KNOWING something, and keeping it quiet, to not give ‘scandal’) puts everyone in a bad position, on top of disobeying the specific verses about clergy qualifications, in defiance.

I hope you do continue posting to NC Register blogs, Verity. The one great thing about this forum is the editors do allow all opinions, and there is no editing. It’s comical because when I speak with many fellow Catholics, they’ll often look at me and say, “You sound Protestant”. When I speak with fellow Born-Again non-Catholic Christians, I’ll hear, “You don’t sound Catholic.” Yet, I am so Catholic, it’s not funny-so thank you for recognizing it.

But Catholic? Non-Catholic? The key is to be a Born-Again Christian, Justified by the Blood of Jesus, and endwelled by the Holy Spirit on earth, destined for eternal life in Heaven, with the Father and the Communion of Saints. Now that has Eternal Value. We are all sinners. Good thing Jesus said He came to call sinners to REPENTANCE. = Justification. Security. Living Water. Allelujia, He is risen!
Verity- Good News!! Good News!! And I think you’re terrific. Thanks.

Lastly, it’s not how we start, it’s how we finish!—that last breath.
Critically important. Everyone - choose Jesus. It’s not about religion.
It’s relationship. Abide in Him. Find Him, in His Word.

Posted by Pam on Monday, Mar, 28, 2011 11:11 PM (EDT):

Cradle you are deluding yourself. A saint- breaking his vows, breaking his professional standards by sleeping with someone he’s counseling, hiding it all, then blaming others for his actions, then leaving without proper procedures and marrying while still married to the Church and jumping into another faith because it suits his sexual lifestyle? No saint I want to emulate. You have your own agenda here but it has nothing to do with Christianity. Sorry but you are the one who is missing the point. God is real. His grace is real. It is stronger than temptation for those who use the sacraments. Fr. Cutie chose the world. God bless him. I pray he repents for the harm he has done. If everyone as as degenerate as you believe we must live in hell. And your lust for intrigue is sinful. What the heck are you dredging up all the filth for? Surely God has a better use for your time.

Verity, It boils down to faith. You look at men and see flaws and judge the situation based on that. That is what Jesus called “thinking like men think.” If you are 66 you lived in the sixties and know how sex got so out of control. You saw faith, the Church, and anything to do with the establishment attacked. Why are you surprised the problems are permeating all of society. The answer isn’t to walk away from the Church. It’s to fight for the holiness of our Church. And it starts one by one by one as Mother Theresa would say. The line that “This is just how men are” or “well it’s part of society now” just doesn’t cut it. I am not aware of Augustine or Merton’s affairs. Were they prior to their priesthood? If not that is troubling. If it was, then they were in sin and moved away from it and because it was sin, it had bad consequences. Fr. Cutie should have done the same if he wanted to be faithful to Jesus and his vows. His “first wife” was waiting for his return! They will answer to God and the women and children. Fr. Cutie put “here and now” ahead of God. Jesus called that looking back and said anyone who did was unworthy of the Kingdom. St. Paul was speaking to all men, so it is reasonable to assume that the Church could determine that those who were able were better suited to be priests. Sexuality is the problem not the solution. My parents also loved each other and of course we love to see warmth between spouses, but there is something GREATER here. Jesus Christ. There is brokenness all around and I have met some sadistic, misogenist priests myself. It is a cross. And it’s hard to remember that even they are “Christ in the distressing disguise” as Mother Theresa would say. The Church is hurting from its actions and some of us are fighting for it to do the right thing so we can all heal and move on. No matter what we all want or do, God’s will, will be done so that is where we find our peace. Thank you God that you are God and we are NOT!

Posted by Verity on Monday, Mar, 28, 2011 10:12 PM (EDT):

Pam, I linked to this website from another blog on which people of all faiths post. I do read Roman Catholic blogs because I respect the opinions of my RC friends and I want to LEARN what RC people are thinking about the issues of today. This is actually the first time I have ever posted on the NCRegister and it will probably be the last. I have read a couple other threads here and formed my own opinions and not posted a word. But, my heart went out to Cradle Catholic because she was being assailed by those who did not even think she should call herself “Catholic.” What an insult to someone who has been Catholic all her life!
I hope I never see this happen on a blog again.
I will tell you now that about 2003 I took the RCIA course with a friend and seriously considered joining the RCC. I then decided to find out more about this sex abuse scandal before making up my mind. What I read cause me to think that doctrines and rituals do not make any one group of Christians behave any better than another. I have a very low tolerance for corruption. BishopAccountability.org posts that 2/3 of the American Bishops have covered up and enabled crimes against children. In the 1990s the pastor of the RC parish in my hometown was sent to prison for this abuse. A few years earlier he had enforced the no communion rule by letter against a person I knew. At first I thought he was just a bad apple, but now I think there is a vast sexual behavior problem in the RCC. Still I will continue to attend RC Masses with friends who invite me. I respect their opinions even if I do not agree.
Even if I do not agree with the mandated celibacy rule, I respect men who have made this vow along with the Holy Orders they have received.
I am almost 66 years old, and I have known four people who were vigorous defenders of the faith in both doctrines and rituals and who were breaking three different of the Ten Commandments in their private lives and not caring a fig about the hurt that they caused to other people. In fact I would say that they enjoyed hurting others. There are plenty of sadistic people in churches. That is the reason I do not value doctrines and rituals very much; although I like them. And I understand that other people may have had different experiences and have formed different opinions and I respect that. However, if I ever learn that the Bishops in my denomination are covering up any immoral activity (it does not even have to be criminal), I will be out the door fast.
Now, I do not want to post my current denomination because I am not proselytising. I study every issue on its own merits and learn opinions from more than one source before making up my mind.
As regards St. Paul, Please read I Corinthians 7:7. Paul states that he WISHES all men were like he is, but that every man has his own gift from God. This does not sound like he thinks celibacy should be a rule. And notice that he says “all men” not “clergy.” St. Paul was speaking as one who believed that Jesus was going to return so soon that it did not seem profitable to get married and raise a family. If he really thought that all men should be celibate and not have children, he would have been a heretic as the human race would have been soon extinguished.
Dear Pam, I thank God everyday for the Holy and Beautiful Attraction that my Christian parents had for each other that brought me out of nothingness into being. I hope you do likewise.
Remember that St. Augustine had a concubine and child, Thomas Merton had a mistress and child….I think Fr. Cutie behaved more honorably than they did.

Pam - Fr. Cutie did the right thing, although it took being caught and outed in public, for him to do it. With that said, there are many, many cases, in fact, even MOST, where a priest will woo a woman, and even father a child/children with them, and then dump the family, with the aid of their bishops.

There is a documentary about “The Gilmore Girls”- who were fathered by a priest, who abandoned them and their mother, helped by his bishop that gave the priest the CHOICE to remain a priest, because, he said, “Charismatic young priests are SO hard to come by”, OR to leave the priesthood, and marry the woman, and father the girls.

Fr. Gilmore CHOSE to remain a priest, and his children and their mother were paid to move to another place, far away from him. What got Fr. Gilmore removed from the priesthood, was when he fathered yet another child, by another woman. Our church has an odd view of what “charismatic” is - You could look this up. I saw the video a few years ago.

Paul, yes my beloved Apostle, wrote that ORDAINED CLERGYMEN should be married. As for Pope Leo’s vision - too bad he didn’t forsee Fr. Gilmore and all the children that were fathered by priests, and abandoned, and those are the FORTUNATE ones. In parts of Africa, priests use nuns for (safe: AIDS-free) sex and when they impregnate them, they demand the nun abort.

A simple Google search will give you that data too. JPII knew all about that - it was in my local newspaper several years ago that a Mother Superior went to the Vatican to complain about her nuns being used for sex by priests, in return for goods, and JPII felt real bad about it, but he did nothing.

When nuns from Africa come to our church, to ask for donations for their missions, I ALWAYS ask them if they are in the areas where sexually active priests are the norm. It doesn’t even shock these nuns - so far, the ones that have come to the USA know about that problem, and they say it DOES still happen, but it’s in certain parts of Africa, and not in all parts of Africa. Hardly comforting.

By comparison, Fr. Cutie is the saint. At least he did the right thing, when outed by the press. He did not have to. After all, we Catholics have very, very low standards, as long as everything LOOKS “holy”.

We like to delude ourselves, and that’s the reason why the US church has spent $1 Billion in clergy abuse payouts, and why a jury in Delaware ordered a PARISH to pay $3.3 million of a $30 million settlement, because the parish looked the other way, allowing their pastor of long ago to sexually abuse parishioners.

Pope Leo should have just read St. Peter Damian’s writings, “The Book of Gomorrah” - and he’d know that nothing has changed at all, since the man-made and UNgodly practice of MANDATED celibacy was the norm. Clergymen WILL have sex. It’s a matter of with whom, and of how many people will be harmed, in the process of their “lapse”.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Mar, 27, 2011 9:49 PM (EDT):

Verity, We disagree about the harm done by a Fr. Cutie type. He called what was a temptation to his vow of celibacy, a blessing. He was the counselor of this woman and abused his position. He undermines the very concepts of faith and grace. His denial of wrongdoing and his blame of the Church instead of his own ego and wrongdoing have caused many souls harm by dividing the faithful. He was plenty old enough to know his alternatives. Certainly, being on tv and in the public eye he was likely to be more tempted and therefore needed to have a strong prayer life.
If you don’t believe in a Church, why are you involving yourself in a Catholic website? I am sorry you think the course of Church history should be flawless, but that would mean that free will does not exist in the Church. You should be in awe that despite free will God has kept His Church in tact and the sacraments and His grace still flow through it as witnessed by the number of saints known and unknown living their lives in heroic virtue.

Cradle, Pope Leo’s vision was ABOUT the 20th century. No conflict with looking at the 20th century. Don’t see your logic there. Again you run into the stumbling blocks of faith, grace and the miraculous when discussing Pope Leo. Faith is a gift and I can’t force it on you. If you pray, God will give it. And if you look at your history closer you will see God working through the good and bad times. And if you don’t care for the Catholic faith, why do you care so much whether or not our priests are celibate or married. Paul, your beloved Apostle, thought celibacy was the better calling. God bless.

Pam wrote, “As to the outcome of sexual abuse issues, perhaps God is getting His priesthood back on the straight and narrow after giving Satan 100 years to prove He could destroy all faith. (Pope Leo XIII’s vision). Talk about changing the subject when you can’t respond to the issue! As to Pope Urban’s actions, you are judging actions that took place a thousand years ago with a twenty-first century perspective.”

Cradle’s reply-
Pam, you’re saying it’s okay to take a vision from Pope Leo XIII, and apply it to a twenty-first century perspective, in that Satan is being gifted by God with 100 years to destroy all faith; yet, we ought not take HISTORY that was the result of Pope Urban’s actions, and look at it from a twenty-first century perspective?

I’d take learing from HISTORY any day, over the dream of some dead pope. He may have eaten too much garlic the night before. Further, the 100 years God supposedly gifted to Satan is a distortion of something that has not yet happened, but revealed in the Book of Revelation. So much for putting weight on what a pope dreamed.

Verity- thank you for reading my comments from an objective standpoint, and for speaking up with agreement about what I wrote. When you wrote in your last post, “Unlike certain Popes, I do not believe that a totally celibate priesthood is a good idea.”, I agree with you. But not because of what I myself think. But rather, because God said in Genesis, that it is not good for man to be alone (as a rule) and clergymen are ideally, to be married, with families.

“For if a man cannot manage his own family with dignity, how can he take care of the church of God?” - that’s sound reasoning to me, but eeryone and to a person, from the Vatican, right on down to the boys on Catholic Answers, and all the other apologists, just IGNORE that verse. A Roman Catholic Modus Operendi is - if it doesn’t fit with an agenda, ignore it.

Posted by Verity on Sunday, Mar, 27, 2011 2:55 PM (EDT):

Pam, I also believe that God can bring good out of evil if we repent and turn to Him. Eventually Joseph saved the lives of his brothers and their families.
The Crusades just got worse. Pope Innocent III called the Fourth Crusade and the Crusade against the Albigensians. The Fourth resulted in the sack of Constantinople which was the last straw in the separation of the Eastern and Western Churches. I do not believe the Eastern Orthodox will ever be comfortable reuniting with Rome; and frankly, I do not blame them for that. It is estimated that the Crusade against the Albigensians caused the deaths of 500,000 people in Southern France. In one town the Crusaders stripped all the men, and children of their clothes and then forced them out into the elements. The criminal crusaders really just wanted the property and wealth of the area. Again all the crusaders had plenary indulgences; so they could do whatever they wanted.
I really do not believe in any church because a study of history shows that all churches have corruption. I believe in God the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, and I honor Him by trying to keep the Commandments. Fr. Cutie certainly lacked self control, but then, he is young (compared to me) and the young often have problems in that area. However, I do not think he did any damage that has not been done by clerics throughout history. Remember St. Augustine. He had a concubine and a son.
Unlike certain Popes, I do not believe that a totally celibate priesthood is a good idea. The Eastern Orthodox and the Anglicans have both married and celibate priests, and I think they do well. While, I personally am not attracted to the Episcopal Church, I think that Fr. Cutie could be a blessing to it.
I also think that God loves everyone just the same no matter what religion they are.
I look to the commandments of God to keep me on the straight and narrow. They are more trustworthy that the Doctors of the Church and the great saints. The latter can give inspiration to courage in a holy life, but they were not without their dark sides.
Your advice is good to say no to immorality with the vote. I also watch carefully not to support any immoral cause with my ever decreasing supply of money. I did not vote for either McCain or Obama because of morality problems with both of them. Let us pray for a better choice next time.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Mar, 27, 2011 1:39 PM (EDT):

Verity, God does not use evil to do good,but He does not let evil be its worst Fr. Groeshel said. So in the case of Joseph, God knew the hearts of the brothers were on killing Joseph and He brought that caravan by and inspired the next younger brother to bring up selling him so that evil would not do its worst. Same with other evils. If evil was what motivated the Pope in the Crusades, God did not let it do its worst. That is not a reason to throw away your belief in the Church. There are evils in the world and we will never stop them. God has told us the solution to all of them is to pray and grow close to Him. It is terrible the things that man does to man when God is not part of the picture, so say no to immorality with your life and vote. “Poor Fr. Cutie” did not! He set a very bad example. He looked back as Jesus would say. He needs prayers. Hopefully he will repent and realize the damage he has done. There are members of the clergy pushing homosexuals into the priesthood and fighting the true faith and watering it down because they can not bear to face their sin and be disgraced. So it IS hard to trust our clergy now. I agree, but look to the Doctors of the Church and the great saints and you will stay on the straight and narrow. Do as they say, not what they do.

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Mar, 26, 2011 11:02 PM (EDT):

Pam, I perhaps overreacted to your suggestion that selling people into slavery as in the story of Joseph might be a part of God’s plan. I think that committing mortal sins was the same a thousand years ago as it is today. I do not think that God asks us to commit mortal sins in order that a greater good might come of it. You did refer to Pope Urban II’s decision: that God has a plan unfolding. I was addressing my scenario to those remarks. Also I do not believe that God sends Satan to tempt us or to torment us. Satan cannot hurt us. Evil people for their own selfish reasons can hurt us, but Satan cannot.
Born Again Cradle Catholic: I looked up Fr. Philip S. Kaufman and read his obituary from 2008. He wrote two books, I have heard of both of them, but have never read them. They are sold very cheaply on Amazon.com.
The usual history lessons are those which teach us what we want to know. Some people defend the crusades; others criticize them. I cannot see anything Christian about them. Pope Urban made criminals into Christian Knights and gave them plenary indulgences, and then these knights went along the Rhine River slaughtering defenseless Jews because they were heathens in the homeland. When they took Jerusalem, the Crusaders slaughtered all the inhabitants, Christian, Muslim and Jewish. When Saladin took Jerusalem, he ordered that lives be spared and the city be washed down with rose water. However, I believe that he allowed the slaughter of some other Muslim villages so that his warriors could have some fun. So he was not any any better than Urban II. I am glad Urban II did not live to see Jerusalem taken. He did not deserve the satisfaction. Also, most people do not know the dark sides of church history, and they do not want to know. They would rather dwell in a fantasy land.
Pam, Have you seen the TV programs which expose the men who go into poor areas and offer young women jobs in other countries? When the women arrive in the Netherlands or Los Angeles, they find out that they are prostitutes. If they do not cooperate, the lives of the families are threatened. The women are drugged to make them more compliant. Some do manage to escape. What do you think happens to many of the children who disappear? Have you read about the institutional abuse of children in Canada and Ireland?
Born Again Cradle Catholic: I read the NCReporter for information and have never posted an opinion on it. I was very surprised that some of your posts were rejected. I jumped into this discussion because I thought that you were being very unfairly criticized. I have noticed that these NCRegister threads are extremely long and go off topic a lot.
Finally, the topic of this thread is poor Fr. Cutie and his options, and I hope that people have thought this through by now and that the Pharisees have quit throwing stones at him. I pray that God will grant him many blessed years of family life and that he and Mrs. Cutie will set a good example of repentance and restored life in Christ.
I also read podles.org which is a blog on culture and faith. You might find that one interesting.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Mar, 26, 2011 8:50 PM (EDT):

Verity, No one thinks clerical sexual abuse is ok. Who was even talking about it? All sexual sins, homosexual relations, fornication, adultery are offensive to God. I was responding to questions by New Observer. As to the outcome of sexual abuse issues, perhaps God is getting His priesthood back on the straight and narrow after giving Satan 100 years to prove He could destroy all faith. (Pope Leo XIII’s vision). Talk about changing the subject when you can’t respond to the issue! As to Pope Urban’s actions, you are judging actions that took place a thousand years ago with a twenty-first century perspective. It doesn’t work that way.
Cradle, You struggle accepting that men walked away from their families in those days to follow prophets and Jesus. It wasn’t looked at the same way as it is now. It’s a lack of faith to think God couldn’t provide. No one is forced to prostitution, but some people FEEL forced to it. Their brothers and sisters in Christ let them down as much as the Pope.

Does everyone know that Pope Urban II in 1089 gave princes the power to enslave the wives of clerics? That was PRIOR to celibacy being made mandatory, which happened in 1139.

When celibacy was made mandatory, the pope at that time dumped his wife & children, to take over the papacy; many wives and daughters of clerics were also forced into prostitution.

Maybe that’s how the rumor began about St. Peter and the other apostles abandoning their wives and children?

A really good book to read, written by Philip S. Kaufman in 1989, a Benedictine that, if alive today is 100 years old, & a priest for 70 years, is: “WHY YOU CAN DISAGREE AND REMAIN A FAITHFUL CATHOLIC”. Published by Meyer Stone Books. It’s excellent-good historical data, telling us pew people how a lot of things developed, throughout church history.

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Mar, 26, 2011 1:06 PM (EDT):

Just to be clear: Selling people into slavery and forcing them to abandon their children is stealing their God given right to freedom. Do not think that these slaves were given menial jobs for some room and board. Slavery is human trafficking. Slaves and unprotected children were used for satisfying the lusts of the flesh of their owners.

Posted by Verity on Saturday, Mar, 26, 2011 10:57 AM (EDT):

Pam, I now see the light. If lay people break the ten commandments, they are automatically excommunicated. If clerics break them, their actions are part of God’s plan for a greater good such as celibacy.
There is more news of the greater good that is coming out of this heinous sex abuse crisis this very morning. The Jesuits have agreed to go bankrupt and pay 1.66.1 million dollars to the people who were victimized by members of their order. Add that to the estimated three billion that has already been paid out and it is clear as the sky on a sunny (Sonny?) day that God wants the US Court System to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH!
Amen.
I am going to increase my yearly donation to SNAP so that they can help lawyers accomplish this noble goal.

PS If I really thought that Pope Benedict regarded clerical crime as part of God’s plan to bring about a greater good, I would never set foot in an RC Church for the rest of his pontificate.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Mar, 25, 2011 9:59 PM (EDT):

New Observer,
See souls vs. flesh: St. Paul saying you have died to the flesh. St. Peter saying you have died to the flesh. We are a new creation. We died with Christ and have risen with Him. “Set your sights on things above.” “I thirst.” (not for bodies, but for souls.)

Pope Urban’s decision: God has a plan that is unfolding. Is that hard to accept? Joseph was thrown in a cistern and sold as a slave to Egyptians. Seems like a horrible thing! Yet God had a plan. Joseph became the right hand of pharoah and was reunited with his family and moses was born in Egypt etc, etc. God’s ways are not man’s ways. They are wondrous and unfathomable so why do you think you have it all figured out?

Actually said they were just men: As you probably really already know, Cradle denied the Holy Spirit working through the Popes because they were “just men with power”. Certainly, they are less than an atom compared to God. They are vile and disgusting St. Louis Marie de Montfort would say. But they are God’s instrument for the Church and through the Holy Spirit, they guide it.

So why are you surprised: I was referring to priestly celibacy, not the sacrament of matrimony. God tells us in the Bible He is a jealous God, did you not know that? And St. Paul tells us how our love and attention is divided when we marry. We may still love the Lord tremendously, but we have other duties. So Paul recognized that to give God all the attention He asked for He needed to give his whole self, single, celibate. The Church has found the truth of that statement in requiring anyone who would dedicate his life to the Church to have an undivided heart ready for total service to God.

Christ said to Pilate: I meant to write “you”. Sorry. The point I was making is our Pope, our Cardinals, our Archbishops on down, no matter how heinous you think they are, have the authority UNDER GOD. Jesus was pointing out that God is in charge of it ALL. He knows all the wrongs and chaos, but He has a plan. See Joseph’s story above. What looks like madness to us is NOT to Him. He could remove them in an instant if it was HIS will. He allows this and it is a MYSTERY. And we, nothings that we are, need a certain humility in all this. We need to pray to Him and beg for wisdom and guidance and tell Him our grievances and ask Him for help.

Pope, Archbishops, Bishops : Definitely the Holy Spirit is working. Do you not understand that God uses men’s strengths and weakness to accomplish His will? God will use your defiance to accomplish His will as much as He will use your good will. He is God. Using the example of Joseph again, He used the jealousy of the brothers who thought they were harming Joseph to accomplish His will of bringing Joseph to Egypt. This is one of the reasons we should be in constant awe of our God. He brings good out of evil. His workings are so mysterious and awesome. His wisdom is beyond human understanding. Glory and Praise to YOU Lord Jesus Christ and God our Father and Holy Spirit!

This is not where our attention should be: Not said because there was no defense. It was a TRUTH I was sharing. Recognize the place God has given each of us and how much love our little corner of nothing needs. Our prayers are so much more powerful than you seem to believe. You seem to think they are nothing compared to “action” but it is the other way around. “If you had the faith of a mustard seed….”

New Observer - your last post is pure gold. Wow. You covered all the bases, and I’m anxiously awaiting a response from someone, anyone, to it.
And yes, our church leaders, no matter their ranks, are just men, as were Peter and Paul. There is ONLY Jesus, The Christ, that is the Anointed One.

There is no “Vicar of Christ” on earth, be it a pope or a priest. Christ is Christ, and there is only One of Him. God, our Sovereign Lord, puts all people in power, and He takes them down - look at the life of Nebuchanezzer in the Old Testament, and how God used Israel’s enemies to bring that nation to its knees, and back to Him.

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Mar, 25, 2011 12:43 AM (EDT):

Pam, I doubt anyone can repair your theology. To wit:

“We see souls where others see flesh (if we are born again of the Spirit)” We do? Which biblical passage makes that statement?

“I don’t know the history of Pope Urban’s decision, but it has been ratified by one thousand years of practice.” So God had it wrong for the first eleven centuries? Instead of making such a comment, perhaps you should take the time to learn the history of that decision.

” ... actually said the Pope and leaders were just men…” Why are you shocked at this comment? Actually, Pam, it was Peter who said to Cornelius: “Get up, I am also a man.” You can find this in Acts 10: 26. How do you reconcile that Peter, the first pope, proclaimed he, himself, was just a man?

“So why are you surprised that He wants those dedicated to Himself celibate.” When did God reveal this truth? That will be shocking news to couples who enter into a covenant marriage with Christ as the head.

“As he said to Pilate, they would not have the authority if it had not been given them from above.” (They?) No Pam. Not the clergy. The correct quotation is that Christ was speaking directly TO “Pilate” and that he (Pilate) would have no authority over Him (Jesus) were it not given him (Pilate) from above.

“God has put Benedict on the chair of Peter. He has given us Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests to lead us.” You do know, Pam, the pope is elected by his peers and some by only a very thin margin. And the voting clergy are often a coalition of like-minded men either of liberal or conservative bent. Cardinals and Bishops are appointed positions and some have been very unwise appointments. Is God responsible for these appointments or are men? Are those Cardinals and Bishops who vote for the losing papal candidate not being led by the Spirit? Is God responsible in the past for placing poor choices of men on the chair of Peter —or is it “just men?”

When you are unable to defend or understand a position, your response is: “This is not where our attention should be focused.”

I do not doubt that the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible. As for God “ratifying” celibacy for 1000 years. For God, 1000 years is like a day, and He is very patient. But at some point, God’s wrath comes out. How He reacts is ALL over the Old Testament. My word!!! God has not “ratified” anything. Priscilla was married to Aquilla (her husband).
Perhaps you are thinking of Pheobe, who is identified as a deaconess, and who Paul entrusted to bring the letter to the Romans. There is also Lydia, from Thyratira, the seller of purple cloth. But we must read the Bible as a WHOLE, and Scripture really does interpret Scripture. God puts everyone in power. And God also brings them down. We must obey God. We know what He wants, by reading His Word.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 11:19 PM (EDT):

@Verity, btw, in an earlier post, perhaps on another blog, Cradle actually said the Pope and leaders were just men, that’s why I said it.
@Cradle How do you get from the Holy Spirit guiding the Church to me doubting the Holy Spirit inspired the Bible? If your concern is that the early Church allowed clergy to be married in the Bible, you must also recognize that Paul thought celbacy was the preferred state and at some point the Church felt so too. God has ratified it for one thousand years. There is no contradiction, this is where you get in trouble. As to women being ordained priests, Pope John Paul II,explained that since no women were among the Apostles, it was not God’s plan for them to be priests. But there were women who headed Churches like Priscilla so I am taking no stand on that one. This is not where our attention should be focused. God has put Benedict on the chair of Peter. He has given us Cardinals, Bishops, Monsignors, Priests to lead us. As he said to Pilate, they would not have the authority if it had not been given them from above. God gave us pew people as you like to call us, prayer. He answers it. He gave us sacraments. We need to use these spiritual gifts to know God’s will. The best social justice for all the activists among us is to get the log out of our own eye.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 11:04 PM (EDT):

@Verity, So now your logic is that if a random priest uses a term it is ok? When someone is called “hot” they are being seen as a sexual object. When something you read is “hot” it is causing a sexual response. It is not a spiritual response. You are right that passionate is a better term. Re: priests, there have been some pastors who converted that were allowed to become priests that I have heard of and Maronite priests are Catholic, although I don’t know if they are Roman Catholic and they can marry, other wise I don’t know of any other Roman Catholics. They are certainly the exception and not the rule. I don’t know the history of Pope Urban’s decision, but it has been ratified by one thousand years of practice. Our God is a jealous God. He has told us that. So why are you surprised that He wants those dedicated to Himself celibate. Paul told us it was the better state as well. As to the quote on no male or female, Paul was referring to Christian conduct. The world uses labels and superficial standards. We are of the Spirit. We have died to that. We see souls where others see flesh (if we are born again of the Spirit) so we recognize we are all members of the body of Christ, one and the same although we are unique, with Christ at the head. Catholic social justice is the corporal works of mercy and the spiritual works of mercy. Again, we are in the world, not of it. We work to bring Christ to people through the corporal and spiritual works of mercy and Christians have always done that so I am not sure where your social justice musings are coming from. The first Christians did practice them. Christ did not oppose Rome or Ceasar. His is a different kingdom not of this world.

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 5:30 PM (EDT):

New Observer: That is a good question to which I can hazard only a general answer. People who are Spiritually led exhibit the Spiritual Gifts: Love, Joy, Peace, Longsuffering, Kindness, Goodness, Faithfulness, Gentleness, Self Control. Those who are not Spiritually led are those who are breaking the Commandments of God or enabling others to break them. Those who show kindness and mercy are Spiritually led. Those who call for Crusades and Inquisitions are not.
In the mid twentieth century several states had eugenics laws which forcibly sterilized people who were thought too incompetent to have children. As far as I know, no members of any church challenged the state governments about this. The leaders of this movement were social workers who had graduated from prestigious colleges. Finally, the ACLU brought legal suits to stop these programs. Now the ACLU defends a woman’s right to abortion. Sometimes groups seek righteousness and sometimes they do not. Kinda scary isn’t it?

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 4:44 PM (EDT):

How do we know when people are being Spiritually led?

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 4:33 PM (EDT):

Pam - you wrote, “There were married clergy at one time, but the SPIRIT lead the Church to celibate clergy.”

Cradle’s reply-
Are you saying that the SPIRIT did NOT inspire the Bible? Are you saying practices in the Church are to evolve and change? If so, when the Magesterium insists that women are NOT to be ordained priests, because it is not in the Deposit of Faith, are you saying they are wrong, and that the people that call for women to be ordained may be correct, and one day, we may have women priests?

There were NO women priests in the Bible, there were NO women priests in the early church, and the Magesterium says there should be NO women priests now. But - if there were MARRIED priests in the Bible, and there were MARRIED priests up until the year 1139, when MANDATED CELIBACY became the norm for the Latin rite, there is a HUGE CHANGE. So why not women priests? —For the record, I am 100% opposed to women priests and I believe the Magesterium is right to not allow it. But -—-

After all, if there is NO NEED to abide by what was written in Scripture and there is NO NEED to hold to what is in the Deposit of Faith, then we can have lots of changes - based on whatever is called for at the time. Right?

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 3:11 PM (EDT):

I have read all of Cradle Catholic’s posts, and I never got the idea the she thought the Church was just the powerful men. I got the idea that by the study of Scripture she had become convinced by the Spirit of her own power to be a force for change in the way Christians are doing things. If you read the website BishopAccountability.org you will learn that in the past fifty or so years about 2/3 of the RC Bishops have covered up crimes against children which were committed by the clergy whom the bishops were supposed to have disciplined. The crisis caused by this cover up policy makes the indiscretions of Fr. Cutie look minor indeed. The people in the pews have to right to inform themselves of the Scriptural corrections and to demand that the Pope do something really effective to fix the system which allowed these crimes to go unpunished. The Holy Spirit lead the people of SNAP to find each other, unite, and slap the hierarchy into doing something about it. Cradle Catholic and I are old enough to know that Christian men and women must not just avoid evil, but also the appearance of evil (I Thessalonians 5:22.)

Posted by Verity on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 2:34 PM (EDT):

Dear Pam, About five years ago I heard a priest use the term “Hot” in a wedding homily in describing the The Song of Solomon, so maybe Cradle Catholic is just repeating a phrase often used to describe this book. There is a term “in hot pursuit” which I never thought to be referring to lust. Every word has several words to describe its meaning. Lust, IMO, means trying to take advantage of another person for one’s own gratification and without regard to the other person’s welfare. That is why it is a serious and deadly sin. Hot is not a deadly sin as far as I know. Hot can be harmful, however, if not handled with care. Perhaps passionate is a better word to use in describing this Old Testament Book which has beautiful passionate poetry about love. Jesus was passionate in His Love for us. He was so passionate that his suffering is called The Passion. There are married clergy in the Roman Catholic Church today. Married men are ordained to the permanent diaconate, and deacons are clergy. The Pope, I believe, can at any time decide that these deacons could be ordained to the priesthood. That would be the easiest way to solve the priest shortage. BTW earlier I mentioned that Pope Urban II sold the wives of clergy into slavery and (correction) allowed the children of these marriages to be abandoned. He put the money into the church coffers. Do you think that the Holy Spirit lead him to do that? Yes, the Holy Spirit does lead the people of God to holy action. He leads very religious people such as William Wilberforce to make the abolition slavery a career goal.. One cannot just study Bible Books without the context of history. When St. Paul wrote that there are no slave or free, male or female in Christ, I always thought that he was speaking about the equality of all human beings before God. God does not love the rich and the powerful people more than the poor and defenseless. It has been my experience that the rich often think God has blessed them because of some kind of superiority they have. Also, it has long been thought that the early Christians did not promote social justice (fight slavery etc.) because they mistakenly believed that Jesus was coming back so soon that all such efforts would be unnecessary when His Kingdom was put in place. This did not happened and Christians had to finally do something.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 24, 2011 9:37 AM (EDT):

Cradle, “Hot” is a term of lust. So you’re off to a bad start. Married love with Jesus in the bed is incredibly tender and deep and sweet. How could it not be? Have you read Tobit? His sons prayer before he takes his wife? That is a man of faith. I have read the song of Solomon and as I told you before, you can’t read the Old Testament without seeing how Jesus applies it in the New Testament. You don’t want to take that step. I never said anything about married love, you misunderstood. What I am referring to are the people who resent men and women working together (married or single), who want to see every interaction with male and female as frightening or potentially adulterous. Jesus changed all of that.
As to reading the Bible out of context, that would be you. You say you can apply what Jesus says in one context about being one in His body to another teaching. Perhaps that s true in some cases and perhaps not in others. It depends on what He was teaching. The point is the Holy Spirit is real. God leads through the Holy Spirit and the Spirit goes where it will. It is not the nice neat predictable package you are trying to force It to be. There were married clergy at one time, but the SPIRIT lead the Church to celibate clergy. You want to reject that. You still equate maleness with sex but to a Christian, that is so secondary. Maleness is in attitude, thought process, approach etc, etc. God bless.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Mar, 23, 2011 10:28 PM (EDT):

Pam - Please read the Song of Solomon, and when you do so, have a pot of cold water handy, to throw at your face, because that book is hot. God is not a prude. God applauds physical intimacy in MARRIAGE. Sex is not to be, as you wrote, “...focused on the flesh that reduces men and women to animals out of control…” and “Grace has replaced garbage..”

May I respectfully point out that married love between one man and one woman is not “garbage”. You use terms from the Bible, like “grace”, but you misuse them. I don’t even know how to respond to some of the points you make that take Scripture so badly out of context.

I want to reply. But where do I begin? I’d like to tell you to speak with your parish priest, but I fear you are being educated by him already.
With your posts, it’s like the Bible exploded, and landed in this blog, as your thoughts. I don’t say that to be unkind, but rather, I will try to draw to your attention the need (the requirement, really) to read the Bible in its context.

Please allow me to point out that when you wrote, “No male or female, slave or free… just one in the body of Christ.”—that verse can be applied to why we do not need to have an Old Testament priesthood anymore, because we are ALL a priesthood of believers. You are correct that it’s in the Bible, but you are missing the point of why and what it’s saying.

We need people to have ROLES in the church, and we need MEN to step to the plate and not only be church leaders, but also leaders of their own households. Everyone must play a role in the church - women ought not usurp the roles of men, and men ought not take over the role of women.

In order for there to be a standard for God’s economy to unfold successfully, we need all of us to play our role & we also need LEADERS, but among a people of God that are One Body - One Body of Christ, with Jesus as its Head. Underneath Jesus’ ROLE, we are all equal, but we are all assigned different work to do, for the benefit of us all, and for the Glory of God.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 23, 2011 10:10 PM (EDT):

Verity, We disagree. Cradles posts, if you read through them. deny the working of the Holy Spirit through the years in the Church. To Cradle the Church is just men in power. I will tell you what I told her. It was very common in the old testament for men to be called to God’s service and it was an honor. It was not looked at with the attitude you have. It is not scandalous in Christianity for men and women to travel, work or be together. “It shall not be like that among you. No male or female, slave or free… just one in the body of Christ.” Their sights were set on things above,?not things of the flesh. Jesus let his feet be washed with tears and dried with hair. He spoke alone with the woman at the well. After Christ we are a new creation. The old way of thinking, full of gossip and focused on the flesh that reduces men and women to animals out of control, is no longer acceptable. Grace has replaced garbage. Verity, Verity you are anxious and worried about many things. there is need of only ONE and if you have Him you won’t rely on the world and the flesh to fulfill your needs.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Mar, 23, 2011 5:25 PM (EDT):

Thank you, Verity. The first time I read the Bible from cover to cover, and studied it myself, I remembered thinking, “Why did they never teach me this?” - so much of it made sense.

God has a healthy view of (married) sex, and if only our church leaders would read and understand the Song of Solomon, as it’s intended to be taught, that alone would reduce the divorce rate, and help families. Priests and their families could be the role models for how we live-and real world living.

It’s tough out there - we need healthy male & female role models, such as so many that are all over the Bible- Old and New Testament. I just keep referring back to the Bible, because it is the Word of God, and as such, it is trustworthy.

Posted by Verity on Wednesday, Mar, 23, 2011 7:35 AM (EDT):

No, Pam, Cradle Catholic is truly seeking the Lord and truly finding Him. She is studying long and hard and applying what she has learned to life as she knows it. She is NOT making insulting remarks about other people’s opinions. It is true that many people will interpret Scripture to say just exactly what they want it to say. We can all fall into that full of pride trap. I do not get that sense with Cradle Catholic.
The very idea that married men would leave their wives and children for the extended family to take care of is very problematical. I think that I Corinthians 9:5 is the answer to that. They were traveling in family groups. Traveling with a sister woman to whom a man was not married would be scandalous.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Mar, 22, 2011 11:55 PM (EDT):

Cradle, You are having fun making up your own religion I must say.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Mar, 22, 2011 10:19 PM (EDT):

I agree with you, Verity. There are so many priests that, if married, would become even better MEN. We need role models. There are too few in secular life, and on television men are portrayed as buffoons.

While many priests say they have a high degree of satisfaction with their ‘jobs’, we pew people need to understand priests can have “lapses”, that could be one or more sexual trysts, if not with children, then with women or even other men. They merely confess their “sin” to another priest (who has secrets of his own to keep), and move on.

In what society is that considered okay? Even Muslims are allowed four WIVES, but it’s taboo to have a wife and a girlfriend. For a priest, it would merely be four “lapses”, easily forgiven, not even frowed upon, because “After all, father is just a man. He’s a sinner, like the rest of us.” Everywhere one looks, as a rule, he is protected. I don’t know what happened with Fr. Corapi. Perhaps because he is a well-known figure, the rules are changed, and Fr. Euteneuer admitted to an indescretion with one particular woman he was exorcising.

Before the sex scandals started to surface in the USA (hidden worldwide since the days of St. Peter Damian, by the way, this is not a new thing), alcohol was THE visible problem for the celibate priesthood, as lonely priests often turn to alcohol or drugs, to cope with their lives. And yet why? It’s silly. An alcoholic or a man with anger management issues is not a good role model either.

God never asked them to remain celibate, or even to PROMISE to remain celibate. It is we pew people, that bought into the drivel that priests are “alter Cristi” - “Other Christs”, and that their celibate lives are superior to the married state. This, while any priest (diocesan or ordered) can adopt one or more children, with a simple approval of his bishop, but he can NEVER marry a woman, because a wife would be too much trouble. I just do not get that reasoning at all. An infant is less work than a wife????

I must add MOST of the allegations of priests and women (or men, and children) are likely true. But for some reason, with this particular case, and the way Fr. Corapi has handled it so far, my gut tells me he is being poorly treated.

It’s just a gut feeling. I’ve seen a LOT of real abuses in our church. While I have none of my own issues, after I became active in working for Church reform that would mesh with Biblical wisdom, I met a woman that bore the child of a priest, who was having a sexual relationship with three other women at the same time. He never married her, and his secret (having fathered a child) was kept, until his death 30 years later. I also know a woman that, as a teenage girl, was raped on the altar by her pastor, who went on to rape yet another girl, because his secret was kept safe by the earlier victim. It’s a mess. It’s seedy. All priests and bishops have a cloud cast on them, because they are in an untrustworthy vocation. “Let the buyer beware.” That ought not be in the church.

Because I too, am considered “conservative” -being against the ordination of women, Pro-Life, and for Traditional Marriage between one man and one woman, believe it or not, Verity, I haven’t had ALL my posts entered into the NC Reporter comment blogs.

The great thing about NC Register is they really ARE balanced. I have not had one comment banned - and I calls ‘em as I sees ‘em, always. Any priest, bishop, cardinal or pope should be able to marry a woman, at any time in his life. Thank you, Verity, I’m grateful that you are now reading NC Register too. Welcome aboard!

Posted by Verity on Tuesday, Mar, 22, 2011 9:29 PM (EDT):

Yes, Cradle Catholic, you have it right. When the Bible says that the bishop should be the husband of only one wife, there can be no doubt that clergy were married, and I see no reason that the wife should have to die before a qualified man can be considered for bishop. Also, it should be stated that there is no need to ban the celibate clergy. Both kinds of priestly vocations are needed. The one to set an example of a Christian marriage, and the other to do the things that a single person might do better. Why should it be all one way or the other. I also feel that if God wants a person to be celibate, that person does not have to promise God that he/she is going to do it. The whole context of I Corinthians 9:5 is that the apostles were family men. I remember from my history books that it was Pope Urban II who finally forbade marriage to the clergy and that he had clerical wives and children sold into slavery. He is also the Pope who called the First Crusade which brought about the deaths of many innocent people.
I also smell a rat in the Fr. Corapi case, and I know that some women will lie about sex if they think they can profit from the lie. Some will even seduce a man and then file a lawsuit for harassment. Confessions, I think, should be held out in the open, if possible, or at least behind glass doors with the priest visible at all times. In this day and age that is only common sense.
I just started to read the NCRegister online. I have been reading the NCReporter, and it is a bit too progressive for me. However, sometimes it takes a person with a totally different outlook to figuratively slap some people back into reality.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Mar, 22, 2011 5:39 PM (EDT):

To Verity - thank you!!! I am so grateful for your kind words to me. It seems like I have to constantly defend my being Catholic. In another blog, I was asked to CHANGE my name, so if you see “Born Again Cradle Catholic” in other places on NC Register posts, you’ll know it’s me.

I figured not many Roman Catholics are accustomed to the term “born again”. When they see it, the term is considered almost derogatory. I remember having thought about people when I heard that, “Oh, what can we expect. They’re one of the ‘born-agains’.” This, while Jesus spoke of it Himself, to Nicodemus, and we hear that reading at Mass.

Since the last post by Twelve, on March 11, there has been yet another high-profile priest whose ministry was stopped. Fr. John Corapi reported that a woman accused him of various impropriaties. Seems she was a former employee, and she wrote to several bishops to complain about him, accusing him of a few improprieties & with OTHER women too.

While I have no idea of what went on in HIS case, I smell a rat in that case. I do not agree with everything Fr. Corapi says, but there’s something fishy with this one. I’d hope bishops would have better counsel, and a better method of handling allegations, such that only the most CREDIBLE allegations are made public, and not ruining a priests reputation for nothing. No one wins in that case.

If only they’d allow priests to just get married!!!!! An all-male environment is just not good. In fact, in Genesis, the first thing God called “not good” was for man to be without woman, without a help-mate.
So pathetic that two otherwise very effective priests, Fr. Euteneuer and Fr. Corapi, have been taken off the job, and both for issues with women.

But I really, really, smell a rat, with Fr. Corapi’s case. Somewhere on THIS post or on another blog, New Observer wrote that priests ought not be alone with women, even in a confessional. Wow. He/she was spot on with that!!! The comment was met with resistance, but priests alone with women just beckons one thing: trouble.

Posted by Verity on Tuesday, Mar, 22, 2011 4:49 PM (EDT):

Cradle Catholic: Thank you for your very well educated responses to the scriptural discussions. You have every reason to call yourself Cradle Catholic and to be proud of the title. I learned a lot from your posts.
As for Fr. Cutie, I wish people would quit throwing stones at him. I also wish he had handled his situation differently. He is obviously not called to celibacy, and he should have resigned, changed churches and married in that order. But, alas, he is a frail human being like most of the rest of us. Nonetheless, I thank God that he found a new position, and I am sure that he and his wife can help the Episcopal Church by leading an exemplary married life if they prayerfully follow the Gospel teachings. May the God of all mercies grant them many blessed year.
All groups of Christians and all individual people need the mercy and guidance of God Almighty as we traverse this life.
You are on the right track, Cradle Catholic.

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Friday, Mar, 11, 2011 3:27 PM (EDT):

Pam,
Thanks for your response regarding the basis of Satan’s 100 years.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Mar, 11, 2011 1:25 AM (EDT):

New Observer, I have related the teaching of the faith and of Jesus Christ on this matter, not my own opinion. God is omnipotent. You don’t seem to believe it. I have experienced God’s grace and power and I know miracles happen and grace is very real. God bless.

Cradle, Do you see what you just wrote? “We are not to have private interpretations in our faith” and yet EVERYTHING you write is your PRIVATE INTERPRETATION, disregarding the magisterium,the Holy Spirit, etc. At this point I believe you have officially formed your own religion. You struggle with the sign of the cross? When we pray, we pray not in our own limited name, but in God’s infinite name. We put our hand to our head first and say “In the name of the Father ” because He is the Head of the Trinity. Then we put our hand to our heart and say “and of the son” because He is Love Incarnate and then we say “and of the Holy Spirit” and touch our shoulders because He is our strength. Besides defining our God with this simple jesture we also are making the design of the cross- the sign of Christs victory and our salvation. It is all quite beautiful! I hope you can learn to love it.

Cradle, I know you struggle with many aspects of our faith like the Holy Spirit working through the Pope, but that is what happened. God reveals things to the Pope because he is the head of the Church. Many Popes have had mystical experiences. In the Bible Jesus said something like “Those who will believe will believe and those who will not will not believe no matter what.” You will not believe no matter what. But I have faith that if you want to believe, God will give you the grace. But you have to want it.

Let me explain what I believe the prayer to St. Michael is saying. It is not ordering St.Michael around. “St. Michael, the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil.” (My understanding of the prayer: Saint Michael, I Pope LeoXIII (and all who say this prayer) know that it was you who God called to cast Lucifer from Heaven. It is through your humility (Michael responded to Lucifer’s ‘I will not serve’ with ‘Who is God?’) that God knew you would always triumph over Lucifer and his pride.) “May God rebuke him we humbly pray and do thou oh Prince of the Heavenly Hosts by the POWER OF GOD,cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through the world seeking the ruin of souls. (My understanding : May God rebuke Satan and give to you,St.Michael, the charge to cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits who wander through this world preying on souls.)

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 7:14 PM (EDT):

Pam - I forgot to mention I never knew it was Pope Leo XIII that penned the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel. In Revelation & also throughout the Bible, angels and archangels are mentioned. But they are next to God, and they are sent only at God’s bidding, not ours.

In fact, I wish our “In the Name of the Father…” were more factually correct. It would help us SO MUCH in prayer to say:

“We pray to the Father, in the Name of the Son, by the power of the Holy Spirit, Amen.” because all prayer is directed TO the Father, and Jesus is our Advocate & we are told to pray in His Name, and we have the Holy Spirit living inside of us, to assist us to pray God’s will.

If we need help, we pray to the Father. It is HE that would instruct St. Michael the Archangel, in a battle - St. Michael does not take instructions/requests from us directly. We pray in Jesus’ Name, to the Father, and the Father hears and answers prayer.

Another excellent book in the Bible to read about prayer is Daniel. I can’t remember what angel appeared to Daniel, it may have been Gabriel, the same angel that the Father sent to Mary at the Annuniciation. All of that shows us how angels work, & how they and we, God’s children, relate to the Trinity.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 7:01 PM (EDT):

Pam - Somewhere in the Bible it says we are not to have “private interpretations” in our faith, and we are not to ADD TO or TAKE AWAY from what is in Scripture. It looks like the pope/cardinal did BOTH.

As for Satan telling God people didn’t love Him but were just forced to, it sounds to me like the book of Job, where Satan went to God & said Job didn’t really LOVE God, but he was just play-acting, and happy because God was blessing him. Read Job and see if it sounds similar to you.

As for Satan having 100 years to take the world away from God, that sounds like a distortion of what is predicted in Revelation during the Tribulation, after the Church is TAKEN out of the world, and Satan has more “rule”, for lack of better words. God is still in charge, but with the church gone, there are less restraints on Satan and the demonic.

Imagine our US Congress without ANYONE at all saying: “Hey! Abortion is wrong. Same sex marriage is wrong.” That’s what it will be like at that time. Everyone will do what they did in the book of Judges - “They all did what was right in their own eyes.”

Satan will have more time to do what he does best: deceive people, and con people into choosing him over God. But that’s not what’s happening now.

What’s happening now is, as I pointed out earlier, exactly the same thing that’s happened since the days of St. Peter Damian. We pew people just need to self-educate, and speak up! By the way, Pam, I applaud YOU and Kathy and all the others that are writing on these blogs!! You CARE!!! God bless your sweet hearts!!! The opposite of love is not hate, it’s indifference. No one can say any of us on this blog are indifferent! <grin>

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 3:01 PM (EDT):

Pam, I read the Zenit article. This is the “opinion” of Cardinal Piacenza. It seems he has too much time on his hands and needs to find more productive activities to engage in. I will repeat to you that clergy are “just men” with no more or less grace than regualr folk. Respect for the office is one thing, but you are deceived into thinking you must worship the ground they walk on. Many love the attention and adoration you are giving them as did the Pharisees. Jesus dismissed that way of thinking you seem to follow.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 11:22 AM (EDT):

Twelve Oaks, It was a vision of Pope Leo XIII. If you research his pontificate or google his name you will find it there. In the late 1800’s he had a vision that Satan was before the throne of God and telling Him people didn’t love Him but were forced to. And that if He had 100 years he could wipe out faith in God or the Church. God gave him the twentieth century. Pope Leo XIII fainted at the vision. When he came to, he composed the prayer to St. Michael the Archangel that is said in many churches at the conclusion of Mass (or used to be) “St. Michael the Archangel, defend us in battle. Be our protection against the wickedness and snares of the devil. May God rebuke him we humbly pray and cast into hell Satan and all evil spirits that prowl through the world seeking the ruin of souls. Amen” The twentieth century has seen the industrial revolution and the degrading of man for profit, two world wars and the holocaust, many other wars, natural disasters, the sexual revolution, the homosexual revolution and aids, increased materialism and secularism and more. Satan’s 100 years are over. Now that we have been sifted like Peter we need to repent and turn back to God.
New Observer, In Zenit yesterday was a letter to the priests from the vatican. Read it. Oh ye of little faith. If we were just men and women there would be no hope. But Jesus Christ lived! He opened us to receive grace again from the Father. Grace we had lost through original sin. We are a NEW CREATION. This IS YOUR FAITH! The miraculous is a way of life for Christians - the multiplication of the loaves and the fishes, the healings, the expulsion of demons, the conversions. We are NOT!!!!“just men!!!!!!!!!!!!!”

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 3:01 AM (EDT):

Pam,

On a couple of occasions you have mentioned that Satan was given the twentieth century to prove his theory that if he had one hundred years men would no longer believe in God and the Church would be destroyed.

I have never heard that idea before. Where do you hear about that concept? Is there any basis for that claim?

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 12:44 AM (EDT):

Pam, you wrote: “As to Fr. Eutenauer he was not “Just a man”. He was an ordained priest filled with sanctifying grace who was tempted and fell out of grace.”

You need to take off your rose-colored glasses, Pam, for how you view the Catholic priesthood. All priests are “just men.” They do not walk on water. As believers in Christ Jesus, they are filled with no more grace than you also are filled as a wife and mother. The problem is that for too long WE have set them on high——and worse yet, they have believed it.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 10, 2011 12:29 AM (EDT):

Pam - I’ve had great success with just doing an Internet Search for stories. Even news magazine-type programs have archives. It would be easy to find out. As New Observer mentioned in his/her post earlier, everyone should have known about that story- even your parish priest.

I agree w/ you that Fr. E can find FORGIVENESS from Jesus if he wants it. There is always time to turn our lives over to God completely; even born-again children of God do sin. But with that said, we are also quicker to realize we have sinned against a holy God, and towards each other. As King David, the man after God’s own heart, wrote in Psalm 51, after he sinned with Bathsheba, “Create in me a CLEAN heart, oh, God…”

Did you know that Jeffrey Dahmer, a heinous criminal, picked up the Bible in prison (where he was serving 14 life sentences, and he was not getting out: ever…) and he believed Jesus died for HIS sin, and Dahmer became a born-again Christian? There’s a book about his life written by the minister that baptized him, and who mentored him for the 3 months before he died. It’s amazing. I think it’s called, “The Dark Journey to Faith: the life of Jeffrey Dahmer”.

Son of Sam is another person that, while still in prison, has a prison ministry with other older lifers. When he’s up for parole, each time, he refuses to ask for it, saying he is needed in prison to fulfill his spiritual gift of mercy & service to these older men. So if Fr. E really repents - meaning to CHANGE one’s life, turn to Jesus, and to His Word, Jesus forgives everyone. The damage he would have caused the woman is a separate issue. The damage he caused the church (lack of trust) is yet another issue. There are a lot of consequences that remain- including no longer serving as a priest- although forgiveness is possible.

When I said some church fathers that came from paganism believed the flesh to be “bad” and things of the spirit to be “good”, I meant those that actually requested to be castrated, in order to fulfill what THEY thought was the letter of the law about “those rendered incapable of marriage by others.”

That’s why it took until the year 1139 for the Vatican to mandate celibacy, and it wasn’t a slam dunk sooner. Even popes fought the idea that sex was bad, and celibate men and women were superior. All clergy was married with children until the 12th century.

The first time celibacy was discussed seriously, in a large group, was at the Council of Elvira in Spain. That was in the 5th century, over 400 years AFTER Pentecost. It was only in that one location - it was not the universal church. Even now, the rules for the 23 Catholic churches in union with Rome are all different.

Mandated celibacy is not good. We are seeing the result of our ignoring God’s specific qualifications for men in ordained ministry = which is the daily news, Katie Couric, Dianne Sawyer, et al. And it’s not news!!! St. Peter Damian wrote all about what we see in the news now, in his Book of Gomorrah. He warned his pope, just like now: that pope ignored him.

Good thing we now have the Internet, TV and radio news, and newspapers galore. The clergy sex abuse scandals will not go away this time. When diocese after diocese declares bankrupcy, and juries continue to hold PEW PEOPLE responsible, the jig will be up. As my mother would tell me, “You danced the tune, now it’s time to pay the piper.” Pew People = get out your wallets! Pay up for the privilege of keeping our collective heads in the sand. The Pennsylvania monsignor being charged is HUGE.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 11:54 PM (EDT):

New Observer, Wouldn’t be my first guess. Perhaps she supports homosexuals in the priesthood or the homosexual agenda or perhaps she thinks the story hurts the republican “supposed to be conservative” line or perhaps the story ran and we missed it! Who knows?

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 11:47 PM (EDT):

Cradle, “For some reason, the idea that the flesh is bad and the spirit is good crept into the Roman Catholic church.” Are you serious? Jesus consistently teaches that the two do battle against each other. You can not serve God and mammon. Set your sights on things above. Die to the flesh. Martha,Martha you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only ONE and Mary has chosen the better part and it shall not be taken from her. etc. etc. Your beloved Paul says, “Do not be deceived no fornicator or sodomite or adulterer will enter the gates of heaven.” St. Peter says in his second letter Chapter 1 verses 2-7 “That divine power of his has freely bestowed on us everything necessary for a life of genuine piety through knowledge of him who called us by his own glory and power. By virtue of them he has bestowed on us the great and precious things he promised, so that through these you who have fled the world corrupted by lust might become sharers in the divine nature.” We are called to be sharers in the DIVINE NATURE. We are called to die to ourselves and live spirit-filled lives. You are called to be in the world but not of it. You are leading yourself astray if you think otherwise!

As to Fr. Eutenauer he was not “Just a man”. He was an ordained priest filled with sanctifying grace who was tempted and fell out of grace. That does not make the grace or its power any less real. He did not pray enough or we did not pray enough for him. I heard him speak as well. As an exorcist and prolife advocate he was a prime target of the devil. To do exorcisms he needs to be in a state of grace and devoted to God. If he fell his Bishop was wise to call him back and get him back on track. Thank you God that he obeyed. Thank you God that You are the Great Physician and can heal him. You often lack faith, Cradle. Jesus said God could raise up people from the stones on the ground to praise Jesus if the Jews had not praised Him themselves as He was entering Jerusalem for His final Passover. Tragic events are NOT the final word. Nothing is impossible with God. Fr. Eutenauer, if he chooses to remain a priest, will find healing from God if he wants it. Living from fear of what might happen is ungodly and untrue to what Jesus asks of us. “Fear is usesless, prayer is what is needed.” Because, as people seem to have forgotten, God IS in charge.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 11:18 PM (EDT):

Pam, perhaps Diane Sawyer is Catholic so she got ABC World News Tonight to shelve the Philadelphia diocese story.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 10:40 PM (EDT):

To Twelve Oaks on Wed, Mar 9, 2011 5:34 PM (EST), who wrote: “The view that 1 Cor 9:5 refers to an umarried woman rather than a wife is inconsistent with the New Jerusalem Bible translation of that verse, which has Christian wife. It is also inconsistent with the New American Bible which also has Christian wife.”

Cradle’s reply:
Thank you SO much, Twelve Oaks! I read that too. It just would not make sense for MEN to have taken single WOMEN with them on trips. Even if all of them were single - and never married, it didn’t make sense for men to have specifically asked for women to accompany them, and after having left their WIVES at home! It just didn’t add up.

What makes sense is (what the Bible says) they took their WIVES with them. And they lived as husband and wife. Not as brother and sister. For some reason, the idea that the flesh is bad and the spirit is good crept into the Roman Catholic church.

I have read that it’s because of some early church fathers that were converts to Catholicism from paganism, and the pagans had a high view of celibacy and a low view of marriage, unlike what we know to be true, in the Bible. If only the Vatican would do a study on the Song of Solomon, in context, and not allow celibate theologians to distort it.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 10:14 PM (EDT):

Pam - How about Fr. Euteneuer? Have you heard about what happened to him?
It crushed me to see his 22 years as a priest go down the drain so fast. I had an opportunity to hear him speak about Family Values. His Pro-Life work was EXCELLENT!!! He was a real leader. I thought he was wonderful.

But he is just a man. Only when priests are caught with their hands in the cookie jars, do we pew people admit they’re just men. Prior to that, they’re alter Cristi - other Christs - and we “need them, to bring us Jesus.” That is so wrong.

Fr. Euteneuer began to do exorcisms, and even wrote a book about it last year. He admitted to an inappropriate relationship with one woman he was exorcising. His bishop learned about it last year, and immediately called him back home to his diocese, and all his work: immediately halted.

It’s pathetic. He’s just a man. What I find odd is how in the world could he find a woman he was exorcising attractive? I don’t get that.
But our church cannot continue to keep its head in the sand. I really feel badly that Fr. E is no longer a role model. But HAS to be stopped from being a church spokesman. He has no credibility anymore. None. His bishop did the right thing in that case.

So sad. It’s we pew people that allow that to happen. We support them. We give the okay for bishops to even allow our children to be abused, and we do not complain. It’s like child sacrifice. In Italy, it’s common knowlege that priests are sexually active - it used to be mostly with women, but there are more homosexual priests there too now. Do you remember the term, “The Lavender Mafia”? That description was not formulated in a vacuum. It’s a problem.

Remember the case of the Vatican priest that hired male prostitutes for the higher-ups? That was in the news last year. None of this is hard to find- it’s front page news everywhere. The Holy Spirit is exposing what our church leadership wanted hidden. God will not be mocked.

It amazes me that JPII’s cause for sainthood is rolling full speed ahead, when he simply refused to even allow Fr. Marcial Maciel to be investigated, and I knew 10 years ago, that there were credible allegations of sexual abuse against him, and by now-retired priests that wanted no money.

Now we learn that Maciel fathered at least one daughter, now grown, and maybe a son or two. His list of abuse victims is too great to mention. Even the boys on Catholic Answers inferred he was a pathological liar that fooled John Paul II. I don’t want to follow anyone that is so easily fooled.

Pew people are wise to read the Bible, and in context, and ask that ALL OUR CLERGY, from parish priest on up to the Vatican, teach and preach the Word of God, in context, and in full - in an expository manner - verse by verse! The time has come to obey God, not man.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 9:38 PM (EDT):

New Observer, We tend to watch Diane Sawyer, not Katie Couric… my husband who watches alot of news hadn’t heard of it either. They are withholding names probably to protect potentially innocent priests. Do unto others… We agree about the forgiveness issue.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 9:15 PM (EDT):

Pam, you just heard about Philadelphia and had to find it online? This has been front page on the CBS Evening News the last 2 nights with Katie Couric. Same old, same old. If the diocese has learned from their errors, why are they not willing to reveal the names of the 21 priests now removed from their parishes? How about some full disclosure instead of the usual hiding and subtrafuge?

As for helping and forgiving sinners, of course that is the Christ-like thing we are called to do. A CFO found guilty of embezzelment can be forgiven by company management, it does not mean he or she is restored to the same position of trust. That goes for Catholic priests and Christian ministers as well.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 9:13 PM (EDT):

Twelve Oaks, Whatever Paul was allowed to do, the Holy Spirit has lead the Church to a celibate priesthood. Satan was given the twentieth century to prove his theory that if he had one hundred years men would no longer believe in God and the Church would be destroyed. His hundred years are over. He did ALOT of damage,but the faith is still here.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 8:54 PM (EDT):

New Observer, You are thinking like men think. To paraphrase the Bible, “Slimeballs you will always have with you.” Look at Philadelphia! (I heard nothing about it and just found it on the internet.) God is at work. He is doing what Archbishops and Bishops did not do before! The Holy Spirit is at work and He will prevail. God’s will is always done, with or without our cooperation. Any time people feel inclined to control things to get an outcome they need to step back and realize they are lacking faith. God is God and we are not. The outcome that is needed for His will to be done is not always known to us! Fear is behind your statement that something bad could happen. Yes it could if the parties choose sin over God. They have free will. If you want a concession, I would say go back to confessionals where there is a center box for the priest and boxes on either side for penitents who are behind a grill. Never would I agree we should deprive women of a private confession because of their sex! How secular is that?! We are all brothers and sisters in Christ. We are meant to work together for the Kingdom. If a priest is so weak that he can not be in the presence of a woman alone then he needs to talk to his bishop and be excused from hearing confessions. I doubt anyone would ask. And if they did I would hope the Bishop would do a thorough investigation of their faith background and suitability for the priesthood. Grace really exists!!! We are not alone. We are surrounded by a cloud of witnesses who want us to succeed! God handed men over to Satan for the twentieth century according to Pope Leo XIII so we are in a terrible state. But now Satan’s 100 years are over. This is a spiritual battle, New Observer, as much as it may LOOK like a political or human one. As to why the Bishops aren’t naming names and are protecting priests who have done terrible things, I have heard an explanation that goes something like this from priests and monsignors (although I don’t agree with all the reasoning): God came to call sinners.(agreed). When a brother falls we aren’t meant to condemn them. We are meant to help them up. (agreed.) Active homosexual priests are sinners but many are “wonderful” priests. (oxymoron to me.) They are on a journey and we, in humility, recognizing our own sinfulness should realize they are not that different from us and so should not be pushing them out of the Church, but helping them closer to Christ. (I would agree we should not push them out of the Church although they would have to refrain from receiving communion if they wouldn’t admit the sinfulness of the act. Christ wants their salvation. BUT they should never be clothed with the office, power and credibility of Priest when they have an objective disorder. This disorder changes their perspective on right and wrong sexual relationships, changes their ability to relate naturally to the opposite sex and the same sex, could very well lead impressionable children or young adults or confused adults into sin, puts them in a position of power to lead others into sexual sin. There are other reasons as well. But even with all these reasons for disagreeing and all the prayers I say for the protection of a HOLY priesthood, I don’t pretend to know God’s will on this. He may allow it because just before He comes he said the desolating abomination would sit on the throne of Peter and that may be what this is about or it may be some other reason only He knows. So if I force my will, I will be fighting God’s, you see?) Finally the argument is that Peter was given the power to loose anything on heaven and on earth, so since this is a problem for the priesthood, why not just loose this (and divorce and celibate priesthood) and get rid of alot of problems and sadness for those who feel helpless and discriminated against? (This part shocks and distresses me and makes me feel Christ will return soon because He will not let this happen. The gates of hell will not prevail against the Church. It’s an absolute absence of faith in God’s healing power. It’s an absolute rejection of the cross. It is carnal and not spiritfilled. It’s so unworthy of Christ and it turns heaven into hell where sexual sin abounds.) Hope this clarifies things. God bless.

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 8:34 PM (EDT):

The view that 1 Cor 9:5 refers to an umarried woman rather than a wife is inconsistent with the New Jerusalem Bible translation of that verse, which has Christian wife. It is also inconsistent with the New American Bible which also has Christian wife.

Therefore, the argument of Kathy and Therese appears to be their own opinion rather than accepted Catholic teaching.

There are several other reasons for rejecting the unmarried woman view, but for Catholics, this one should be enough. I’ll not take bandwidth to set forth the others.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 2:45 PM (EDT):

Pam, I appreciate your view, but we are failing to connect on the issue. Look at the times in which we live now. The Catholic scandal is not only limited to pedophile priests but predatory assaults on younger and adult women as well. I am tired of my tithing going for financial settlements (even if legitimate) as a result of these slimeballs. I am also tired of the Pope and his Magesterium apologizing from here until the cows come home and then Philadelphia explodes yesterday with even more scandal. Philadelphia is not news to the “inner circle” of the Philadelphia diocese. They just supressed all this for years hoping the news would never come to light. Even now, they refuse to release the names of those clergy who have been suspended. Why is there always stonewalling by Bishops? They say they “get it” —but yesterday proves they don’t. I am sure there will still be more apologizing. How about firing these guys and the complicit Bishops as well. Doing this will ensure the other priests and Bishops finally “get it.” Isn’t that what your employer would do to you? Both Catholic priests and Christian ministers in this climate need to assess who they are meeting behind closed doors with. If the woman is a long time parishioner, well known, etc., —that is a fairly safe encounter. It the woman is unknown or hardly known, then safeguards should be in place for the priest to not meet privately behind closed doors. This is not about oppressing women. Likewise, parents also need to protect their children. The door should be open and/or someone else should be present or within viewing distance but not necessarily within earshot. It’s just common sense.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 12:32 PM (EDT):

New Observer, Two more points. 1. What I am describing is how a CATHOLIC walks through this world no matter what the rest of the world is doing. In bringing healthiness where there was stereotyping and fear, peoples eyes are opened and love is what draws others to Christ. And 2. Catholics need to realize this segregation of the sexes and this mindset of fear is being used as a tool to oppress women and to justify an agenda that labels people by appearance or characteristics. It is exceedingly unhealthy. I see it in the workplace and when children or adults are judged by their dress, gifts etc. It is not loving.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 3:03 AM (EDT):

New Observer, There is no doubt we are in a spiritual battle and that some people are actively seeking out holy people to cause a fall and disgrace them. This is part of the liberal agenda to legitimize the sins of abortion and homosexuality by claiming that all people sin so we are wrong to acknowledge it as sin. We have to stand up to this. This is just not Catholic teaching. And we do need to be very prayerful and receive the Eucharist and stay in a state of grace in these times, but there is no excuse for the attitudes I described above among Christians. I am not advocating a priest or minister go out to dinner with an attractive woman alone or go on a car ride alone, but priests and ministers visit the homebound and meet with committees and talk to ccd directors etc. If some of these should be female it shouldn’t matter one bit. I am talking normal every day encounters. I am also saying priests and ministers need to chastise gossips and be horrified by the direction their minds go and correct them rather than being embarrassed or self conscious for speaking to the opposite sex. By excusing this behavior we become part of the problem. The scribes and pharisees were constantly looking for ways to trap Jesus and the Apostles and they lived under the same hostility, but they still lived their faith despite possible DEATH because they knew GOD was GOD and they had FAITH that they would be watched over until His will was accomplished in them. We seem to have forgotten that. We have guardian angels and saints praying for us and Jesus Christ himself in us and with us. People will go to jail or be killed or just suffer when faith is persecuted, but it is a path to Heaven - the one Jesus, Peter and James took. I do not speak for other Christian faiths or for Billy Graham, just Catholics because that’s the faith I know. Catholics don’t stop loving because someone might try to distort it to some evil purpose.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 2:55 AM (EDT):

Pam,

I’m sorry to say, you’ll be all alone again! For Lent I am giving up blogging here.

I will miss the conversations here. I’ll pray for you, please do the same for me.

Wishing all of you a deep and meaningful Lent!

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 1:29 AM (EDT):

Pam,——-what you are describing is a world of total Christianity, and that will never exist. Even for Christians, we are still sinful and subject to the same temptations as everyone in the flesh. Even our priests are not immune. It does not go away as the news from the Diocese of Philadelphia came out today. Someone in church leadership may actually (for the first time) end up in jail. Why do you think Cardinal Law had to leave town in the middle of night for Rome? He will probably be arrested if he returns to the United States for complicity and knowingly hiding these men.

Wise Catholic clergy and Protestant ministers need to protect themselves—not—from the Christian family you say we all are, but from those who may seek to harm the body or level false charges which can devastate any Christian community. Once a charge is made, even if false, causes harm to the body and negatively influences non-believers who may one day come to Christ. There are countless examples of an innocent photograph or encounter which have been used to damage the reputation of priests and ministers. Taking protective measures is a wise bulwark against Satanic evil.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 1:13 AM (EDT):

Kathy, Thanks for the support. It’s been lonely without you. lol.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 1:11 AM (EDT):

Cradle, When I ask God to bless you, I am doing what He commanded. He asks us to bless those we don’t get along with at the moment because He Himself lets the sun shine on the good and the bad. You want to solve the Churches problems using your brain and your interpretation of Paul. I want to solve them using God and spiritual weapons. Since we haven’t been able to get closer on this and since you discount Peter’s call to overcome carnal desire, I do as God has commanded and bless you both. I happen to follow the Mass with a Vatican II missal which has the readings for years I and II one after the other. At lunch I read both and Peter has been the off year’s readings and He speaks of the grace that overcame the carnal desires and urges disciples to live awaiting Jesus return overcoming carnal desires. We agree about alot of issues you mention in your post to Kathy. No homosexuality in the priesthood, no women priests, no off the wall translations etc. Yes, peaceful protests in front of abortion clinics. God bless.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 9, 2011 12:52 AM (EDT):

Cradle, It would be WONDERFUL to have men and women interacting like the Christians they were created to be. You use the term “abandonned” but it was an honor to be called to serve Jesus and it wasn’t looked at in that way. And it wouldn’t be looked at in that way in a Christian community now. I am in a community that is so sick because of this very issue. I feel like I live in a cesspool. There is Christian holiness and there is secular proper behavior. They have very little in common. We are told in the Bible that as Christians we are a NEW creation. (This is because we have received God’s grace and the gift of the Holy Spirit) We are NOT to lord it over one another. We are NOT to be male or female, slave or free, we are all members of the one body of Christ. Our eyes do NOT see the same. Our minds do NOT think like men think any more. We see the world from the spiritual reality that has been opened to us. When you are in love with Jesus Christ you see others and see a soul or someone He died for or thirsts for. Jesus had women travelling with Him and the Apostles from the beginning and they helped prepare the upper room, the meals, etc. The Apostles weren’t at ALL looking at them as the opposite sex they might like to sleep with. Grace had overcome all that. They were all companions of Jesus and working to know and love and be with Him. Jesus spoke with the woman at the well, ALONE. He let another woman wash His feet with her tears and dry them with her hair and there is NO mention of Him getting an ERECTION from this because it wasn’t SEXUAL. It was CHRISTIAN! In the mindset I have been exposed to, anytime a man and woman are together minds immediately go to the gutter. Everything is scandalous. Because all humans are untrustworthy?, unable to control themselves?, full of jealousy?, insecurity?, envy? It is SO unChristian. Men and women DO work together and travel together and that is so healthy and NORMAL. If a person has an insecure spouse who has trouble handling that, the spouse needs to reassure and not use the insecurity as a weapon. They also need to be firm that the insecurity is the problem, not working with the opposite sex. If someone suffers from envy that anyone else could make their spouse content, happy, laugh etc. they need to hear from their spouse firmly that they are #1 and are very loved BUT receiving kindness and goodness and laughter or whatever positive interaction is a GIFT from God and an act of Christian CHARITY. And that NO two people are a complete universe to themselves and that they each need to find love in this world as well as in each other because, after all, thats why we were created - TO LOVE ONE ANOTHER. If someone should find they start to feel a physical attraction to someone then they need to limit their exposure to the person and recognize that this particular person isn’t someone they can spend time with and they need to use the sacraments for God’s grace. But that should be a rare case. Remember how hard it was to find THE ONE? This attitude of Billy Graham may be different from what I experience, I don’t know, but I am so strongly opposed to the sickness around me, I would be hard pressed to put up with any “hedge” and still call myself a Christian. The whole problem is if you start to live out of FEAR of what MIGHT happen, you have already walked away from JESUS! Men and women do NOT OWN THEIR SPOUSES!!!!! We don’t own ANYTHING! We are owned by God and so is everything else. Those feelings are the problem. God can take any one of us away in a second. Everything is grace. Love CAN hurt if you are insecure or envious or married to someone who doesnt know or love Christ. These insecurities and envies are attacks of the bad guy. They are overcome by prayer and love and grace NOT by binding up the world to suit your insecurity or envy. Making the whole world suffer because you are insecure is incredibly selfish and naive and immature. It’s a control freak issue and not of God. We aren’t in charge. Hearts may break. Sin may happen. But love will ABOUND if we let it. The other way hearts will still break. Sin will still happen but love will be CRUSHED like a bug under a steamroller. Sadly, there are actually networks of people around here who go around watching other people, spying really. They are like vigilantes.They are looking for the bad guy and their going to catch him/her. How far in the cesspool is that thinking? What kind of way is that to live? Can you even for the briefest moment picture Jesus doing that? Can you imagine the nausea and pain He feels seeing so-called Christians spying on each other because they don’t trust each other? When you see two people together and they are not flirtatious or sexual, but just getting along and perhaps even enjoying positive interaction don’t you think that HONORS Jesus Christ? Don’t you wish your whole world was full of people interacting in healthy happy ways? Don’t you want to get along with your neighbor without worrying that some dope is going to turn it into some juicy gossip? The wrong people are under attack.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 10:42 PM (EDT):

Kathy, you wrote: “That’s exactly what ThereseEE did several weeks ago, when she went through those same bible verses you threw at Pam. ThereseEE started from the Greek (remember Gyno meaning woman, not wife..”

If the apostles abandoned their wife and their children, would it be wise for them to take a single women along on their travels? Just looking at it from a common sense perspective, how would it look? And why would a MAN specifically want to take a WOMAN with him?

I know the mentality of many reading this blog is: “Catholic? Good. Non-Catholic? BAD.” - but with that said, I know of many non-Catholic Christian preachers and Protestant church leaders, Billy Graham among them, that have a policy to NEVER meet with a woman alone, even if it is to have a single woman pick them up from the airport.

They do not go to lunch alone with women they know either. They call it “hedges”, setting boundaries to protect their marriages, and out of respect for their whole community, so their wives can feel secure, knowing they are trustworthy.

Would it seem like a good idea to you, Pam, for what TheresaEE to be true? To have married men that had abandoned their wives, traveling with single women? How would that look to the non-Christian world in that day? How would their wives and families feel about it, do you think? How would it look TODAY, for a married man that abandoned his wife and family to go off with a single woman? Would that be okay?

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 8:25 PM (EDT):

Kathy- That New Age nun is one of the darlings of Call to Action and Future Church. Many years ago, when Voice of the Faithful was a group that just called for accountability and healthy change, I joined them. But almost from Day One, I complained about what I saw as a radical left-leaning influence infiltrating the group from CTA and FC, and I (and other conservative Catholics) later left the organization, in disgust.

Through VOTF, I met this nun that calls herself a “theologian”. I confronted her about her support for women priests. I asked her for even a shred of evidence that it was in the universal church tradition, and I told her there was nothing in Scripture to support women’s ordination, and in fact, what I found in Scripture would be against it, and I used the word “orthodox”.

She asked, “Do you not think I’m Orthodox?” I said no, I did not. She had a cool FIT. She was practically jumping up and down, like a spitting teapot, and she stormed away from me, later telling me that she was putting me on a “90-day hiatus) from speaking with her, and from writing to her. Frankly, I felt the woman had nothing to teach me, so although this happened about 5 years ago, I made the ‘hiatus’ permanent.
Ironically, she is also the darling of several local priests and even bishops. Go figure.

She is not the only New Age nun that have problems with me. Another (more kind but silly) nun was teaching that Jesus did not say “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of Heaven”, but rather, in Aramaic, He said, “Happy and aligned are they that are one with the Queenship and the Kingship of the Cosmos.”

I wrote three letters to my bishop, complaining about her teaching, and that was after I complained to the pastor at the church. Both pastor and bishop dismissed me. I was only after I was able to fax her handout to the priest that was Mel Gibson’s scholar of Aramaic, for the Passion of the Christ, that I got a letter out of the blue from my bishop that said, “She still thinks the information is good. But she won’t be teaching that class anymore.”

So I had a Trifecta. Public flack on protecting life, heat on working to preserve traditional marriage, and anger from a New Age nun that wants women to be ordained.

When a person links ONE article that’s GOOD, and that gives data and information that’s relative and important, I think it’s reasonable to just read the article and not read INTO it. That would be like saying recipes from a newspaper are bad, because they may have run articles about politics you do not like. We DO NEED NEWS. We really can’t keep our heads in the sand forever.

Kathy- I know of a woman who walked into the room when her son was being molested by her parish priest about 25 years ago. She was an eye-witness.
Yet, her thinking that we do not bring ‘scandal’ to the church causes her to remain quiet to this day. Her daughter, who remembers when it happened, but who was NOT an eye-witness, has come forward.

The son is now an alcoholic basket-case, and he can’t speak for himself. So the priest is off the hook, scott free, because no one WILL speak up about what happened. Do you think that’s good? Is that going to cause our church to be trustworthy? How many dioceses have to declare bankrupcy before we pew people see the light?

Regarding Truth: I know what Fr. Corapi says, and what he said did not originate with him. But he is correct. That’s why I capitalized Truth. Truth is indeed a Person = Jesus. I’ll check out your system of reading the Bible - thanks for that. If anything I wrote came across as condescending, I apologize. It was not intentional. I only call for an end to mandatory celibacy because 1) Scripture verses that directly apply to the ordained priesthood call for married men and 2) UNIVERSAL Church Tradition backs up the fact that married men was the norm and 3) mandated celibacy just is not working - too many immature priests, no matter how well-meaning they were when they started out, and too many bishops that look the other way, when “issues” arise. We need to bring trust to our church. It will not happen, by continuing to ignore the specific verses that apply to ordained ministry, per Scripture.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 7:48 PM (EDT):

@ New Observer

Didn’t you see the influence of money enabling the Bishop of Boston to perform the Ted Kennedy funeral?

I have as much distain for this as you do, but I chalk it up to the known fact that Boston is a terribly liberal diocese. When I heard Fr. John Corapi talk a couple years ago, he asked us all to pray especially hard for him, because his next talk was in Boston. You could actually hear the people in the church gasp! Then Fr. Corapi gave a shudder, and laughed! He said said, “yes, I can see you already know about BOSTON!”

Even Nancy Pelosi took communion from the Pope. Check out Sen Richard Durban and VP Joe Biden.

Pope Benedict SCOLDED her for her public announcement that “the Catholic church has never really said when life begins.” (Personally, I think a spanking was in order, too.)

But, he wouldn’t allow his picture to be taken with her, and he NEVER gave her communion.
Biden and Kerry have been addressed and told they cannot receieve communion. I don’t know about Durban. Perhaps he has a liberal bishop that won’t do his job?

Posted by Kathy16670 on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 7:29 PM (EDT):

@ Cradle

1) I took heat for WORKING on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in California. I worked with MORMONS and the Knights of Columbus, because our own bishop is liberal.

I certainly recognize that there are liberal dissenters (like your bishop,)in the Church. I’m truly sorry that your bishop is one of them. Thank you for your work on Prop 8.

2) I was at a rally with a Pro-Life sign, among rabid Pro-Choice women- it wasn’t pretty.

Been there, done that, met the same rabid women! Nope, not pretty! Again, thanks for your good work!

3) I took flack from a NEW AGE NUN for being against women priests.

Wow, haven’t experianced that. Again, it’s a real shame that there are dissenters from what the Catholic Church REALLY teaches, and these liberal dissenters.

So your comment about my mentioning the National Catholic Reporter, and linking it to articles about same-sex marriage, women priests and pro-choice issues is silly. What does that have to do with anything?

No, it’s not silly. Either you are in lock-step with the dissenters, and agree with them (thereby linking articles from them as a reputable source,) or you see them for what they are. If you read what you find there, and find them credible enough to quote from, then you have to realize that the New Age Nun, and your liberal bishop probably subscribe to that paper!

Posted by Kathy16670 on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 7:14 PM (EDT):

@ Cradle

You said to Pam

So, Pam, I urge you to take this Lenten season to acquaint yourself with Bible truths, and not discount God’s grace that comes by reading it in context, and in full, and for yourself. By reading Scripture, you’ll be equipped to respond more fully to those of us that have read more about the Christian faith.

Certainly, if you are honest, you can see how that just drips with condescending implication.
Why do you think you are the only who has read through the bible? Why do you think that you know more than anyone else when it comes to scripture? You read the passages of scripture with a “lens,” to see what you want to see.
The Magisterium of the Catholic Church is the body, guided by the Holy Spirit, to determine the correct interpretation. Your arguments are with the Holy Spirit, even if you cannot see it.

You will find YOUR voice, and know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.

Ah… shouldn’t we be looking for “God’s voice,” and not our own?
“Truth, in its essence is not something, it is somebody, his name is Jesus Christ. “ (A favorite quote from Fr. John Corapi) And yes, the real TRUTH will set you free.

If you do not believe Unbent or I are on the right path, what needs to be done, in love, is for you to point out specifics indicating precisely where we’re incorrect, then PROVING from God’s word what IS correct.

*sign* That’s exactly what ThereseEE did several weeks ago, when she went through those same bible verses you threw at Pam. ThereseEE started from the Greek (remember Gyno meaning woman, not wife, etc,) and showed how those passages did not mean what you wanted them to mean? ThereseEE proved it to you, but now Pam needs to prove it again? Why? Where is the TRUTH in that? Perhaps you just want to believe your own preconceived notions, and are not particularly interested in the truth?

Cradle, you gave Pam a “Lenten challenge.” I’d like to give you one of my own. I am part of a lay community. About 6 years ago we read through the bible together (for the 1st time as a community), using the “Dictionary of Biblical Theology” by Zavier Leon-Dufour. It takes a different approach, breaking down the meaning of different words. Take the word “Water,” for example. It will give a brief overview of the biblical meaning of the word, then site references in the Old and New Testament. As a group we looked up the references, each person assigned to a reading. We voted on which scripture passage held the most meaning for us, personally, and selected one scripture reading from each part of the Bible:
1)Pentateuch and Historicals
2) Wisdom and Prophets
3) Acts, Letters, and Revelation
4) Gospels
This approach is very comprehensive. I challenge you to get a copy of the” Dictionary of Biblical Theology”, and work your way through it. It may just show you something new.

Posted by New Observer on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 6:51 PM (EDT):

Kathy 16670————-Are you really shocked at all this? Don’t over-polish that halo you think the Magesterium wears. Didn’t you see the influence of money enabling the Bishop of Boston to perform the Ted Kennedy funeral? He always voted pro-abortion as did all the Kennedy’s. Even Nancy Pelosi took communion from the Pope. Check out Sen Richard Durban and VP Joe Biden. All Catholics and never called out by their Bishop. Where is the Magesterium when standing for truth over influence and money? On the plus side, my Bishop removed a parish priest (advocating marriage between 2 committed same sex couples). In a neighboring diocese, another priest advocates the same thing and the Bishop does nothing. Keep in mind that at the end of life, no one from the Magesterium will be there to plead your case. They are not that special.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 6:19 PM (EDT):

Kathy16670 -

1) I took heat for WORKING on the Yes on Prop 8 campaign in California. I worked with MORMONS and the Knights of Columbus, because our own bishop is liberal.

2) I was at a rally with a Pro-Life sign, among rabid Pro-Choice women- it wasn’t pretty.
3) I took flack from a NEW AGE NUN for being against women priests.

So your comment about my mentioning the National Catholic Reporter, and linking it to articles about same-sex marriage, women priests and pro-choice issues is silly. What does that have to do with anything?

Posted by Kathy16670 on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 6:11 PM (EDT):

Just checked after a few days, and saw it had deteriorated to linking articles from National “Catholic” REPORTER!!!!!

If this is where you are getting your “Catholic” information, no wonder you are confused. The “Reporter” is a dissenting paper run by “psuedo Catholics,” teaching everything under the sun, EXCEPT what the Magisterium actually teaches!

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 5:50 PM (EDT):

Pam - When we ask God to bless someone or their work, we’re asking Him to make what they’re doing prosper. If you do not believe Unbent or I are on the right path, what needs to be done, in love, is for you to point out specifics indicating precisely where we’re incorrect, then PROVING from God’s word what IS correct.

As an example of what I’m suggesting to you, I have given specific verses from the Bible indicating God DOES speak about qualifications for those men ordained to ministry. I’ve not just given you my opinion. I wrote fact. Unbent & I have both pointed out that married men was the norm in UNIVERSAL Church Tradition. You have rejected church history as well.

God speaks through His word, primarily. So, Pam, I urge you to take this Lenten season to aquaint yourself with Bible truths, and not discount God’s grace that comes by reading it in context, and in full, and for yourself. By reading Scripture, you’ll be equipped to respond more fully to those of us that have read more about the Christian faith, and that have the benefit of educated pastors that are willing to teach (like Unbent’s wonderful pastor), & less about the opinions of church leaders, coming 400 years after Pentecost and as recently as John Paul II’s. You will find YOUR voice, and know the Truth, and the Truth will set you free.

In the meantime, I see a bit of hope with Pope Benedict, in that he is a church historian. He seems to call it like it is, rather than tweaking history beyond recognition, & making it his goal to merely save face for 1000 years of past church leadership.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Mar, 8, 2011 12:16 AM (EDT):

Cradle and Unbent, What is icky is taking the exceptions and making them the rule. What is icky is relying on your own opinion and discounting God’s grace. What is icky is labelling every opinion that does not agree with yours as a slam or nasty or whatever other negative because you can not really dispute the truth. God bless your spiritual journey.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 9:47 PM (EDT):

Well, I hope you get this little note of thanks, Unbent! You did perk me up - it gave me joy to know that not only do YOU have a great pastor, but also, you have more parishes in your area that are similar.

Being on a ‘Catholic site’ is not a given - what IS a given is if we are all truly Christian: and then, we can enjoy the benefits of the fruit of the Holy Spirit- love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, gentleness and self-control.

Though we have moments of being ourselves, we are always drawn back into acting more like Him. Your wonderful pastor deserves thanks - please tell him “Cradle” thinks he’s great? And so are you, Unbent. I am so grateful for your kind words and your sharing of thoughts.

I’m also appreciative for the NC Register that provides a place for Catholics to openly share what’s on our minds, and to reach out to each other, and to our clergy too. I know ONE priest that really “gets it” - understands Scripture, and whom I consider to be a brother in Christ.
The important thing is not if we are in church. The important thing is if we are IN CHRIST.

You have a wonderfully prayerful Lenten season too, and I understand your reasons behind not wanting to go into your RCIA preparation further - thanks for sharing what you already did. I found it inspiring and most helpful! That window analogy is a winner too!!!!

Posted by unbent woman on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 9:37 PM (EDT):

Hi Cradle, Yes we are incredibly fortunate to have multiple churches in our area where we live. Last night, we were not at our home parish. This was a different priest. Great one. Yes the verbage was mine that used the word “worthy” to relay his homily. I am humble under my God and only hope to please him. There is no doubt that the fine Father last night feels the same.

Now after reading both of Pam’s posts immediately following my own, I need to tell you Cradle, that I am not happy to share any more details on the RCIA experience that I so loved. I am sorry for that, but I am not into this ugliness.

I guess, that by virtue of the fact that we are blogging on a Catholic site, respect for each other was a gimme. surely we are broaching topics, about which, we may have different opinions, but when it comes down to who you are, I chose to assume that we are all good people, driven by the Holy Spirit.
I shared a story of a beautiful Grace filled evening with a man who has lived his life to serve his God. This man set at ease, a woman who did not feel equipped to examine her own conscience because she was overwhelmed with rules. He brought her peace by relating to her on a human level. It is kind of beyond me that the first comment from Pam was a slam on this man she had never even met. He is acutely aware of the obligations that come with answering the call to his vocation. He does is dutifully and with joy. I cannot read another cross word about someone I love and respect because his message is received with some weird bias. He is a good man who knows his job. He would respect any of us immediately. He sees the good.

So I am not going to fuel an argument fire. It is icky. I enjoyed the exchange of ideas in the beginning, and actually felt some respect from others as well. I thought that folks were looking for inspiration and insight. But now, twice, the meat of the matter was overlooked while semantics were argued. I know what Justification is. I think we all do. My priest last night delivered a very lovely message about the Good News and our mission calling. It was fantastic. Shared that cuz Cradle bet nobody heard about it in a homily and I wanted to raise her up. She seemed a little bummed. Look at the fruit. An extravaganza of scriptural/theological muscle flexing. I am not speaking for anyone else; this is not feeling good and Holy anymore. So I’m going to back out. Prayers for a meaningful Lenten season all! Bless

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 7:33 PM (EDT):

Unbent- I am so happy for you and your family! You sound as if you have an ideal pastor, someone who can preach and teach. Excellent! The windows are a wonderful word picture for what he was teaching.

One thing you mentioned that I’d like to comment on, giving another perspective is your quote, “What works are you happy to do for your fellow man and woman to be worthy of the ransom He paid?”—ALL of us are dead in our sin, when God gives us the grace to be justified. We aren’t just sick, we’re dead.

Dead people can’t do anything to help themselves at all. But for some reason, God chose us, as He chose Israel before us, to be His Family, and He redeemed us. It is 100% out of gratitude and out of being submissive to God that He continues to give us the grace to act differently than the rest of the world, those that are NOT walking in His light, and to be seen as His Children. So if I can make one small change in your statement, it’s not that we do works to be “worthy” of the ransom He paid, but that, as grateful children, we cannot NOT give back to Him.

I once heard a quote, “We can give to someone without loving them. But we cannot love someone without giving to them.” “For God so loved the world that He GAVE…” And to Israel, “For unto us a child is born, unto us a SON IS GIVEN.”—The good news!!

PAM - The devil BELIEVES in God. The devil and the other fallen angels BELIEVE that God has the power to overcome sin. Does that mean the devil and the other fallen angels are justified?

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 7:18 PM (EDT):

Another excellent article is in National Catholic Reporter that shows that the Church KNEW the sex abuse scandals were coming. It was written by Eugene Kennedy. Please fellow Catholics: we cannot keep our heads in the sand. There are SOME good priests out there, and we have an obligation to see that they live full lives, and are not kept down, and controlled, and all so that we can remain oblivious to the obvious. It is high time for God’s wisdom to be heeded, and end mandatory celibacy.

Here is the comment on another NC Register blog-The title of the entry is:
Pope Questions Celibacy?

You can see the comment at the following URL:
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/pope-questions-celibacy/

“Mandatory celibacy in the Roman Catholic Church was forced on men who wished to be priests in the twelfth century. Before that time, priests could be married.

Mandatory celibacy has been a way for the RCC to use its moral authority to exploit those who wish to give God their all. In reality, we can desire to give God our all in every walk of life, whether we are married or single, for God’s greater glory.

Mandatory celibacy has given the RCC power and control over the precious,
vulnerable lives of priests and nuns for centuries.

Mandatory celibacy has created psychosexually immature adults who are
priests and nuns and under the control of an institution interested in power and control.

Mandatory celibacy is one of the causes of worldwide sexual abuse of
innocent children by Roman Catholic priests and nuns.

As a Catholic physician, I say it is time to end mandatory celibacy in the
RCC, if we care to see the RCC survive and thrive.

Also, I would like to see an end to same-sex orders of nuns, brothers, and
priests.

Jesus lived in the world and wanted us to live in the world, whether we are single or married.

Jesus never established same-sex orders or communities, they are a creation of the RCC as a method of control over peoples’ lives. Obedience is a cruel tool of the Pope and Curia to gain power and control over the lives of bishops, priests, brothers, and nuns.

I think it is time to stop being enablers of the leaders of the RCC, because they seem focused on being princes with power and control, rather than on following in the footsteps of Jesus as servant leaders of the People of God.”

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 4:59 PM (EDT):

Pam you wrote about God, “He permitted those 100 years of Satan attacking the faith.”

Cradle’s reply:
It has not only been 100 years of clergymen (priests & bishops) using pew people of all ages for sex. St. Peter Damian wrote a book called “The Book of Gomorrah” about the priests/bishops/etc, using their “spiritual children” for sex. Many were actually minor male children. He warned the pope in his day, who, like in our day, promptly ignored his warnings. So sexually active priests is old news. This is just the latest round of them, in the last 1500 years.

The only thing different now is with modern technology and news reports, we know ALL of what’s going on. It’s a joke in Italy that in every village, there’s a child that’s a dead-ringer for the local parish priest. In Italy, there aren’t as many homosexual priests/bishops as much as there are heterosexual clergymen; even in the USA, for a priest to have sex with someone is merely called a “Lapse”.

A lapse is quickly confessed to another clergyman (most commonly, a spiritual advisor)who has had “lapses” of his own. They just forgive each other’s failings and move on, leaving used and abused pew people in their wakes. I know people that can’t enter a Catholic Church, without having a panic attack, and frankly, I know how they feel.

The worst case I know of was a girl who was about 12 when she was raped in the sacristy. Because she stayed quiet, about 15 years later, yet another 12 year old girl was raped by the same priest. I met both girls at a healing meeting. There will be NO HEALING until there is change. And clergymen must change their mindsets.

My own first-hand witness:
I went to a memorial of an older priest that fathered the now adult child of a woman I met after the scandals came to light. The priest that gave the eulogy said of the deceased, “OH! He was such a wonderful priest! We need MORE like him!”—this was because the man had a good reputation for social justice issues.

But what was NOT mentioned was that 1) the priest had fathered a child out of wedlock 2) when the child was in adolescence, the priest was in the hospital and 3 OTHER women came to visit him, ALL, including the child’s mother, were in a sexual relationship with him and 3) the identity of the child remained a SECRET from all the mourners, even at the memorial!

That priest was able to take his secret to his grave! And the presiding priest knew ALL about this priest’s escapades from Day One - over 30 years ago. Do you know why? It’s because we pew people do not demand any of them to have integrity. Instead, we put priests on pedestals, thinking of them as “other Christs”, until we find out they are just like us: sinners, and not above any laws, civil or Gods.

That dead priests soul- I wonder where it is now? And for the presiding priest that said, “He was so wonderful - we need MORE priests like him” - I wonder where his soul will go, and as for ALL the others that kept the secret: heaven bound?

and you wrote: “This life of GRACE is what we must witness to,not the “need” or “right” to sex!”

Cradle’s reply:
There is more to marriage than having sex. There is sanctifying grace that God gives IN marriage that cannot be had in any other way. There is a give and take, a dance of sorts, for two different people (male and female) w/ the woman being the help-meet, and the man being in the lead, that causes a couple to grow.

Right now, we have TOO MANY emotionally immature priests. I know priests that are over 80 years old, and they are like crabby little boys, when they don’t get their own way, or when they feel they are being challenged.

I read a wonderful post on another blog about Fr. Cutie and celibay that I’ll post below this one. It’s from someone that is on the inside, and what she writes is precisely what the real experts have been saying all along. I’ve followed the clergy sex abuse issue for the past 10 years - although I am Cradle Catholic, with 12 years Catholic education, I only had good experiences with both priests and nuns.

With that said, two years ago, at a class reunion, I learned that at least two classmates were abused by our now-dead pastor. Those will not come to light - one of the boys committed suicide about 15 years ago, and mentioned that pastor’s name in his suicide note. I couldn’t figure out why, until two years ago, when I learned a still-living classmate was also abused.

and “You are so LITERAL and so willing to throw out a thousand years of wisdom!”

Cradle’s reply:
Celibacy was mandated in the year 1139. The fear of God is the beginning of all wisdom. “Fear” means obedience. Pew people & church leaders must obey God, not the thinking of the day from people of the Middle Ages.

and “How do you accept that Christ dwells in everyone of us..”

Cradle’s reply:
I believe the Bible - and St. Paul tells us that we pew people, IF we are TRUE FOLLOWERS of Christ, are the Temples of the Holy Spirit, and endwelled by Him.

Posted by Pam on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 2:05 PM (EDT):

Unbent, The justification is for those who BELIEVE. That means having faith in His power to overcome sin with His grace.

Posted by unbent woman on Monday, Mar, 7, 2011 4:42 AM (EDT):

Bing, Bing, Bing Cradle. I WAS IN A ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH TODAY AND HEARD A HOMILY ABOUT JUSTIFICATION. Now you are going to just think I am a big boaster…..but I will share because it was bee-u-tee-ful. Father spoke about Justification by Faith. He spoke of the salvation promised to the faithful. He then challenged people to consider if we aspire to build anything greater upon the foundation that Christ has so generously laid. He pointed to the unique windows that line both lengths of the church. They are gorgeous stain glass depictions of Christ and came as a gift from somewhere in Austria (I am almost certain he said Austria). They are actually suspended in front of plane paned windows of the exact same size and shape. Light shines through the clear window, plus it can open. Perhaps setting the actual windows in the walls was too risky. No matter, they provided a lovely analogy. He asked us to look at the windows….they contain the depiction of our faith. They tell the story of our salvation through Christ’s Life, Death and Resurrection. He said look at their shape. The bottom is squared, as a strong foundation should be. They rise and toward the top, arch inward from either side and join, to point up. They draw the eye and heart to the Father and His son who paid our ransom with his life. So the windows represent your Justification of Faith. And if those windows represent our faith, the ones behind that open represent our mission. What works are you happy to do for your fellow man and woman to be worthy of the ransom He paid? Good, good news. It is there. It is the only thing there is. I am sure there a good many more parishes worldwide that sang that Good News as they sang their last Sunday Alleluias before the most special day of our year. I am sorry that you did not hear the same message. Was something disillusioning at your mass today? I think that you might want to look for a parish where you are more inclined to hear your mission call. It is not an offense to the parish you are in. It is funny in our house because our kids range from 10-21 years old. One of my sons is most inspired at the church where he grew up and served. My youngest calls the Norbertine church on the local campus, his church, because he relates to the priest there. Mass is an obligation, now that is if it is boring, or latin, or soul satisfyingly earth-shattering. It is important to be in a state of mind where you are capable of being a steward. So look for the place where the Body and Blood are your Faith, and the Homily is your mission inspiration. Godspeed! Prayers

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Mar, 6, 2011 10:04 PM (EDT):

Cradle, The pedophile priest scandal is still very much an open wound. It is not healing as quickly as we might like because of the sexual climate we live in and the power of the homosexual lobby and the weakened state of faith among Christians in general. But God is aware of it all. He permitted those 100 years of Satan attacking the faith. This is all such a great MYSTERY we need to be in awe of it and pray for grace and work for holiness. You are seeking a human solution - men need women so permit it and things will go better- but that is simplistic and not really true. What the Church has learned through the Apostles and great saints is that the life of grace is more powerful than any temptation. I have personally experienced it. When grace is received for a certain problem sin loses all power. It is not attractive to the recipient of the grace. How much more the priest, who is so dear to God, receives this grace if he is open to it. This life of GRACE is what we must witness to,not the “need” or “right” to sex! We have been sifted like Peter and we need to repent, not change the system to fit our failings. Our failings should make us weep in shame as they made Peter weep.

When you hear the Bible passage you quote from Mass today, do you realize it could apply to you. You are so LITERAL and so willing to throw out a thousand years of wisdom! All your arguments are limited by arbitrary parimeters you set up. You limit God to fit your logic, I’m afraid. I don’t hear the Spirit in your writing just legalese. I wonder if you have had that baptism in the Spirit yet. We do have some scarily wayward priests trying to reinvent the faith so rely on the great saints when you are in doubt. Christ is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow.

As to priests as grooms, holy priests are very aware of the miraculous act that occurs when their hands are extended over the Eucharist, over the sinner in the confessional,over the sick they annoint, over the couple that is celebrating a marriage, over the soul that is being baptised. They do NOT think they ARE Jesus Christ, they know they are the instrument in whom Christ dwells and accomplishes these miraculous things. How do you accept that Christ dwells in everyone of us and struggle so mightily that all these priests are married to the Church? He is GOD! NOTHING is impossible for Him oh you of little faith. St. Paul is NOT God and although nothing new has been revealed since Jesus walked this earth, MUCH has been elucidated and fleshed out. St. Peter and many saints have asked us not to go backwards and get caught in the carnal. You and I will not make that decision, but I pray to God those who do are in a state of grace and listening to the Holy Spirit!

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Sunday, Mar, 6, 2011 8:24 PM (EDT):

Pam - What you and I were taught is a priest acts 1) in the Person of Christ to us & as such 2) a priest is married TO us, the Church & 3) the man is ‘a priest forever, according to’...Melchezideck.

But only Jesus is those things. A priest is merely a presider at the Lords Day Supper.

If what we were taught was true, & that is what God wanted us to think, He would have revealed all this special information to St. Paul. Paul learned directly from the Holy Spirit, in the desert. Paul’s letter to the Galations tells us he was not with the Apostles, but he was tutored in everything he needed to know about Christ, in the desert, directly by the Holy Spirit.

If what we were taught to believe about the priesthood were true, wouldn’t it be reasonable that Paul would have written it SOMEWHERE in all of the 13 letters he wrote, outlining doctrine of the Christian faith?

Paul and the other epistle writers are very clear, very consistent and very detailed. Why was that left out? Mere men, albeit ordained men, are mentioned in the New Testament. We know what qualifications they are to have, and what they are supposed to do (preach and teach the Gospel, in tact, as they got it from the apostles).

But none of what we were taught is even close to what they are to do, per the Bible.

It is such a HUGE role for any person or group to play in the church, being IN the Person of Christ, this concept should be found somewhere in the book of Romans, considered by many as the Christian Constitution. Wouldn’t it be reasonable to expect that, Pam? It is nowhere.

In fact, even in the writings of Peter, he calls himself another elder. Although we know Peter played a big ROLE in the church. When Jesus was alone, it was almost always with Peter, James and John, the three of them being the innermost, most intimate of friends with Jesus.

So I’m not saying that we don’t have ROLES in the church & males/females play those roles. But it’s written there are “neither male, nor female, free man or slave, Jew or Gentile” in God’s economy. That is what the Bible says about ALL of us. Thus a male priest would be part of the Bride of Christ.

There is only ONE Bridegroom = Jesus. There is only ONE Bride, us = the Church. The priest is a PART of the Church. He is not set apart from us. He just has a different role in the Church.

The Old Testament had priests that WERE set apart from the rest of the people. There were rules he must abide by, in order to offer sacrifices on BEHALF of the people, to a holy and distant God. The irony is that even in those days, MARRIAGE for the priesthood was fine.

Even when they took a Nazarite Vow, dedicating themselves completely to God (for a period of time, or for their whole lives!) MARRIAGE was fine. In the VOW, they promised to:
1) not touch the fruit of the vine - like wine, and
2)not to touch a dead body and
3) not to cut their hair.

All the men that took Nazarite Vows consecrating themselves to God were married in the Old Testament.

God was set apart from the people in the Old Testament, and a priest was needed, for messages to get from the people to God. That’s why Moses even went to speak with God ALONE. The people were kept FROM God. Remember, Aaron (where the priesthood began…) and the people making the golden calf, when they were impatient for Moses to come back down the mountain, having received the 10 Commandments from God?

But we are no longer in the OLD Testament. When Jesus died, at the Crucifixion, on Calvary, do you remember what happened? The sky turned dark, although it was mid-day, and there was an earthquake, and people known to have been DEAD and buried were raised, and became alive again, and the VEIL in the Temple (an enormously thick fabric, thick like carpet) tore FROM TOP TO BOTTOM, indicating we had ACCESS to God, because the Father was SATISFIED with Jesus’ offering of Himself for us.

Between all of that, and the manner in which Jesus “gave up His Spirit” is what caused the Roman Centurian to say, “Surely, this was the Son of God.”

The readings at Mass today were ALL ABOUT Justification & propitiation. But I’ll bet not one Catholic parish on the face of the earth heard a homily about Justification, because for Catholics, there is no good news.
There is no justification. There is no Gospel. That’s why Catholics need (Old Testament) priests, that are taught to believe they are Jesus: and Priest, Prophet and King.

What Catholics (and other Christians) need are presbyters, preachers and teachers of the Gospel - all of it, not bits and pieces, we need men that UNDERSTAND the writings of St. Paul, and that can tell us of the Good News and the way to salvation. Even today’s readings tell us that it is NOT through works. It’s all right there, in our Catholic Bibles and in our Catholic Mass readings. Pew people just don’t pay attention to it.

It’s pathetic that our priests think they ARE Jesus, and yet, they don’t even understand His Message. Even priests refuse to read the Bible, in context, and in full. A priest, IF HE IS BORN-AGAIN, and he accepts the truths that were in OUR OWN readings TODAY, Sunday, March 6, is a part of the Church. The priest, collectively with the rest of us, IS the Bride.

Pam - think about it: there is only ONE Jesus. How in the world can you think even the best priest can hold a candle to the Son of God? It’s only when these “Jesus wannabee” priests get caught with their hands in the cookie jar, that even the Vatican will say: “Oh, they are only mere men. Sinners like the rest of us. Let’s forgive! Jesus would forgive!”

Pam - Do you remember the Gospel reading from today? “On that day, they will come to Me and say, ‘Lord, Lord! We preached in your name, We healed in your name. We cast out demons in your name!’ And I will say to them, ‘Depart from me, you doers of iniquity. I never knew you.”

Who preaches, and heals and casts out demons? Priests have that role. Bishops have that role. We must be careful who we follow. Especially here in the US, we have Bibles all around us, and it is easy for us pew people to read God’s Word, and accept and obey Him. After all, this is precisely what the readings were about today. 100%. If we will only hear and obey Him. Alter Cristi is hogwash. There is only one Jesus.

Priests have roles: preach and teach the Gospel, in context and in full.
In turn, us pew people are equipped, to inform others of the Gospel. The Christian faith is to be spread, not to be hidden or kept to ourselves. It’s “GOOD NEWS!!”

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Mar, 6, 2011 1:46 AM (EDT):

No. He is married to the Church at all times.

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Sunday, Mar, 6, 2011 12:38 AM (EDT):

Pam,

Is the priest married to the church only while he celebrates the Eucharist?

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Mar, 5, 2011 11:26 PM (EDT):

Cradle and Ten Oaks, I see you aren’t serious about understanding the Catholic faith. You think like man not like God. When a priest, EVERY PRIEST, celebrates the Eucharist he stands in “persona Christi”. He is by his ordination and the laying on of hands passed on by the Apostles, taking ordinary bread and ordinary wine and like Christ, in the person of Christ working through him, changing that bread and wine into the body, blood, soul and divinity of Christ. He, the priest, in persona Christi, has as his bride the Church. God bless.

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Saturday, Mar, 5, 2011 8:54 PM (EDT):

Cradle is correct. Jesus has one bride, and He will not sure His bride with another. Further, someone cannot be part of the bride and married to the bride at the same time.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Mar, 5, 2011 8:23 PM (EDT):

Pam - There is One Bridegroom = Jesus. There is One Bride = the Church.
ALL of us are “The Bride”.

Priests, bishops and popes are members of the Church, “The Bride”, IF they are born-again followers of Jesus. If they do NOT follow Jesus (and only God knows our hearts) they are “of their father” = the devil.

We have seen all too many examples in the news of not only priests, but even more BISHOPS that are NOT followers of Jesus. We can discern that by looking at their FRUIT. Read the news. Talk with these men. Write to them. Ask them questions. Many bishops are NOT Holy Spirit-filled.

Priests are not Jesus. The idea of any priest being “in persona Cristi” is blasphemous. Jesus is GOD. There is only ONE Jesus. There is only ONE CHRIST, God’s holy and “Anointed One.”

There are not “other Christs”. Most certainly not anyone today. Even Peter and Paul, John, Moses and Abraham did NOT call themselves “other Gods”. It would be blasphemous in the days of the Bible: Old Testament and New Testament.

There is but one Trinity. Too many priests and bishops (and popes) see themselves as the Fourth Members of the Holy Trinity. It is so wrong.
With so many priests & bishops abusing their power with pew people, and thinking they ARE God, perhaps crucifixion should be brought back into fashion? Then they could REALLY identify with Jesus - and not on a surface deep basis, where they get only perks, frills & recognition.

Let’s see how many of them REALLY follow Jesus, to suffer and die, as He did. There will be few takers. Many of these men do not even want their names tarnished, AFTER they’ve abused children sexually. The only thing most bishops can lead is the way to the buffet table.

Bringing back crucifixion would purge our church of the low-lifes that so boldly identify with our Lord & Savior’s Body & Soul, shamelessly thinking of themselves as Him to us clueless and vulnerable pew people.

News Flash: Jesus is God. Clergyman: You are not.

Jesus did nothing wrong to merit His crucifixion, and He died for us, out of love. Can this be said of you, clergyman? You that so badly want to be CALLED “another Christ”, but in Name only? Pew People - read the Bible, please. Priests are taught their role is to be: Priest, prophet and KING. The priest that said that in a homily doesn’t even know what Ephesians Chapter Six means. God help us. Prophet?

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Saturday, Mar, 5, 2011 1:08 PM (EDT):

Pam, How many wives does Christ have?

Posted by Pam on Friday, Mar, 4, 2011 10:54 PM (EDT):

Cradle, Not sure why you have a problem with the priest being married to the Church. He is in persona Christi. As a Catholic he is a member, as a priest he is a spouse.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Mar, 4, 2011 10:26 PM (EDT):

Unbent - Yes, the suggestion to pray for the Holy Spirit to intercede prior to reading Scripture is a great idea. It is written, “My ways are not your ways”, and I like to remember that God’s ways are far above any of ours, it’s good to ask Him, because He promised that the closer we get to Him, the closer He draws to us.

Somewhere it is written “Thy words I have hidden in my heart” and it’s good to memorize some verses too, to be pulled out, when we need them. So many great promises in the New Testament - like “Seek first the Kingdom of God, and all will be added unto you.” and “God resists the proud, and gives grace to the humble.”

The devil is such a deceiver - like a roaring lion, searching the earth for whomever he can devour. Having God’s promises at the ready is a super way to resist him, and God promises that the devil will flee, when we resist him, through God’s own Word, that will not return to Him void!
God bless you, in your Scripture reading! Have a great weekend, and a wonderful Lord’s Day worship!

Posted by unbent woman on Friday, Mar, 4, 2011 3:50 AM (EDT):

I am not sure who mentioned it above, and I guess I am happy for that. No matter who said it, I agreed with the suggestion, and made myself the promise to pray for intercession every time I am about to open the Bible. So thanks to the person who recommended, and I paraphrase, that we go to the Bible seeking to reveal the Truth, not looking to utilize it as a debating tool. I don’t remember ever specifically doing that, but it struck a nerve. So I am happy to introduce a new prayer to my routine. I will share that prayer with my youth, and hopefully they will take a moment and ask for Grace when they read scripture. Your suggestion fell on grateful ears, and your hopes have already been realized and multiplied!
Peace

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Mar, 4, 2011 1:31 AM (EDT):

Pam - If Unbent’s pastor is already married TO the Church, the Body and the Bride of Christ, how can he be IN the church at the same time?

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 10:38 PM (EDT):

Cradle, You are under so many misconceptions. Peter never said Paul was correct. Paul assigned a motive to Peter’s actions and chastised him. Peter didn’t give his version of this account, but did act charitably by eating with the gentiles before the Jews to assuage Paul. Thats all we know. And as to Mary Magdalene being the prostitute, that is by no means a settled matter one way or the other. You seem to latch onto opinions you agree with and make them the standard.

Unbent, Your pastor is already married and it is sad he doesn’t recognize that. Breaking down what must be believed and what can be disputed seems a rather sad intro to the Catholic faith. There is so much for members of RCIA to learn to understand the fullness of faith. How to dispute it or avoid following is what he chose to show them?

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 9:04 PM (EDT):

Unbent Woman- Your sharing: “He challenged us to respect that humans not only receive the Word, they deliver it.” is profound. Thank you. I loved all of what you wrote, and the time you took to share it with us.
Your parish is fortunate to have you too!

.... what I prefer best is to ask the Holy Spirit to lead me into truth, and to open His Word to me, and open my eyes to see, and my ears to hear, and then, I sit down with the Bible. = Best thing I ever did!! Thanks for all your suggestions and I’ll re-read your wonderful post again, in more detail later. Enjoy your dinner! Again, thank you -

Posted by unbent woman on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 8:41 PM (EDT):

Cradle: Oh Boy. Can’t tell you how nervous that request makes me. It would break my heart to misquote my dear dear friend and have anyone discredit his lesson. His presentation came from no notes. I was on a dry erase board and flowed straight from his heart. So I must speak with him regarding the fine details. I am willing to gather the finer points and relay them. Not sure when that will be as we are overwhelmed with the Lenten preparations…but I promise. It was one of the most beautiful memories I have. We can find Grace everywhere if we are looking. But in this moment, you could not miss it! It was a small group, my candidate was an adult and already married to a most devout man. Needless to say, she was intimidated. I would not consider myself a fantastic advocate, I would say more prepared and devoted than most. I could inform well. I shared the hows, whats and most of the whys. Where I became stumped, was when my answer to the why seemed to contradict better scriptural instruction. I can’t honestly give specific example other than his reconciling the law of celibacy, with his finding legitimate flaws therewith. I know I would be taking liberties if I tried. I heard and saw nothing else in that moment of pure Grace. If we were ten people conferring there, we were lucky…but we were a Church. We were a group with the only goal of learning and sharing the way to most perfectly love. We are called to abide and respect the God-given law. You must. But when it comes down to traditions that change, or rules that are penned by men, it is on the Catholic steward herself (or himself) to find peace. Without peace and devotion to the place where you kneel, you cannot possibly be your best for your neighbor and ultimately Him. He challenged us to respect that humans not only receive the Word, they deliver it. Inherent in that formula is conflict. Inherent in just and loving resolution of conflict, is Grace. What he pointed out, was that resolution does not mean satisfaction, it means the humble acceptance that another human made that rule. Another human….who called upon the help of the Holy Spirit and all of the angels and saints when he did it. If God were here laying down the law, where would faith come in. Where would humility, acceptance and respect be needed. Well, not to worry. He is here, but he has given us free will to build this city. Until I get back to you with the specific examples he gave, I will share the strategies he recommended and I have incorporated into my life. First of all, find a spiritual guide. They are out there. Are you near a Catholic College? Go to their Campus Ministry Office and tell them you are looking for one. These are trained advocates interested in helping you live and love. Pray to Mary for guidance, Invite the Holy Spirit before you invite your brain. I know you understand that. Practice the Sacraments, often. Go and adore Christ. Is there a church in your area that has hours of adoration? This one is my own suggestion. Perhaps this is one of your practices already. I feel Jesus at the moment of consecration every time I receive the Eucharist, but existing, for prolonged periods, in His presence, adoring Him…I am a soldier of peace. I do not know how to relay the power of comfort I gain. Please somebody else, put this into better words because I get lost in His Glory. I guess all in all, he gave us avenues to know Christ, the next logical step is to put Him on. When I go out with Him on, I proceed with peace and clarity and love. I know that there are people reading on this blog, who I firmly disagree with on certain issues. But I really and truly love them. I have not always done that. Today, it is not because I am supposed to love them. It is because they are wearing Him too.
Whoa…way to drive the love train off the rails when I am supposed to be making dinner. I’m cooking with love tonight. Lemme know what you think. Works for my heart.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 6:17 PM (EDT):

Unbent Woman - You wrote: “Recently, while facilitating an RCIA student, our pastor broke down differences between doctrine and dogma. During that discussion, he landed on the tradition of married, and then non-married clergy throughout history. He said that, although he honors his vows, he would love a wife.”

You have a very special pastor. Is there a way you could share the list your pastor prepared about doctrine and dogma with us? I’ve always depended upon the Creed, in terms of being congruent with what I believe in remaining Roman Catholic. I own a catechism, but it’s useless to try to make heads or tails out of it.

MY problem is I believe 100% of some things the catechism teaches about, for instance: the doctrine of Justification, but… then OTHER teachings creep in, rendering the catechism teaching on that subject null and void.

It would be helpful to have a list of essentials of being Roman Catholic and non-essentials. Just curious - thought I’d ask. If it’s too difficult, no worries. Again, congratualations on your wonderful parish!!!!! Would that MORE pastors would be like yours!!! - grounded,
approachable, with a true vocation, & not afraid to address controversial issues = a man of integrity.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 6:07 PM (EDT):

Pam, you wrote: “...millions read the Bible and lead themselves astray. Jesus Christ opened the Bible to the Apostles and to the great saints. Our teaching magisterium knows the interpretation HE put to passages.”

The millions that read the Bible and lead themselves astry do not have the benefit of the Holy Spirit to lead them into TRUTH. These misled people often have agendas when they read Scripture. They often are not submitted to Christ, but rather, they look for verses to fit an already determined outcome - one that fits what they want.

This is why so many other Christians reading the verses - that were taken out of context - and used to justify PRACTICES, such as celibacy, find it downright comical to see how the magesterium has distorted the verse. for Bible-literate people, it just does not make sense. One would have to suspend all wisdom, to believe the hoo-ha that is being taught to us.

If the apostles were still leading today, I would have no problem with following what they say - because they were ALL in communion with each other, and FALSE TEACHING was taken very seriously in those early days.
Now, false teaching is tolerated. False teaching is even adopted!

If all our priests and ALL our bishops were walking with God (by holding to His Word, precisely) and teaching it, in context, I’d be right with them. But how can anyone read the Bible, and KNOW it is different from what we are being taught, and not say anything? Not question anything?
I don’t understand that. Can you explain how one can know one is being hoodwinked, and yet remain silent?

The apostles LIVED the Bible. The Bible was not written, when they were alive. Many of them wrote what we now have as the Bible - their teachings comprise what has been in existence for nearly 2000 years.

If St. Peter and St. Paul were alive today, and both did a world tour of dioceses of the Roman Catholic Church, I wonder how they would feel about what our Magesterium is teaching us.

St. Peter would be shocked to know his successor mandated he is “infallible”, because when Paul brought to Peter’s attention he was WRONG about a matter of faith, Acts of the Apostles tells us that Paul was found to be CORRECT, and Peter accepted his correction. Peter was not infallible on faith and morals.

As for mandated celibacy, many of the “great saints” you wrote about would think it was terrific, because most of them were pagan and the flesh was considered bad, and the spirit was considered good. It was a higher state to be virginal, and to remain celibate, for these saints.

But OTHER Christians (popes among them, then) fought them tooth and nail, to NOT have celibacy. It was only when corruption got so bad by the year 1139, that it was mandated. And at that time, priests were compelled to abandon their wives and families. Even the pope back then left his wife and family, to assume the papacy. How Christian is that?

The apostles were not dead beat dads and wife abandoners. Of course, many of “great saints” wrote that this happened - so we believe that today. But this is like Pope Gregory the Great made a mistake once, identifying Mary Magdalene in a homily as the prostitute that dried Jesus’ feet with her hair.

I grew up thinking poor Mary was a prostitute. She was not. Pope Gregory the Great slandered her, albeit inadvertantly. So St. Peter, St. Paul, AND Mary Magdalene would be postitively shocked to see what we’ve been taught, if they were alive today.

This is why we have the Bible - to keep us on track and in His Will. The Holy Spirit leads us into TRUTH, when we read the Bible IN CONTEXT and we use verses to explain other verses, and not read the Bible with an agenda.

Posted by Susan on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 11:57 AM (EDT):

Allowing priests to marry is definitely not the answer to a declining priesthood. The priesthood and marriage are reflections of each other – the priest being the good example to married couples with his fidelity to the Church and all of her teachings and a constant service to his flock, and the married couples supporting the priest in his vocation by their fidelity to each other and to the Church. There is a decline in all self-giving professions, (protestant ministry, OB doctors, nurses, etc.)of which only the Catholic Church requires celibacy. It is our self-serving versus self-giving culture that has caused the decline. We have become materialistic and do not tend to pursue any vocation that isn’t about making money or conferring status, which has made it very hard to hear the call of God to a vocation. A good friend of mine who is a very holy priest has often told me about how his parents taught constantly about selflessness. This man is always other-serving so as to serve Christ. He would absolutely have no time for a wife or children. He keeps his schedule busy 24/7 serving others. (When I need some direction from him, I often find my emails were answered at the early hours of 2 or 3 a.m. as it may be the only time he had that day to get to his email) He does a holy hour and says mass every single day. He comes from a household of 11 children from which came 2 very holy priests (out of the 3 boys) and 1 cloistered Carmelite nun (out of the 8 girls)! They were constantly focused on prayer and on others. They learned early about redemptive suffering and how to offer it to God and not place too much emphasis on their own problems – that to focus on others to serve Christ was the best way to deal with any problems. In our pursuit of wealth, our families have shrunk, leaving many parents loathe to plant the seeds of religious vocations in their own children so as not to lose out on their own possibilties of grandparenthood etc. It’s all about fidelity to all of the Church’s teachings, not just the ones that are comfortable for us…

Posted by unbent woman on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 5:32 AM (EDT):

Pam, You most certainly are entitled to the opinion that my perspective is unusual. I am not, however, spinning anything. I do not think that the existence of sexual impropriety within the Church is the only argument for the return to a married priesthood. I do think it is important to discuss the effects that celibacy has upon the psychological well-being of our fine clergy. If you find my perspective to be unusual there, then you find the perspective of our pope to be unusual. This is only one of the reasons listed in the recomendation to discuss the law of celibacy. I found the letter signed by then, Bp Ratzinger and eight other theologians, to be so compassionate. This is pulled directly from translated document….

“...But we must also reflect on this problem in regard to the realizability of the unmarried life of the present-day young priest (think, e.g., of the question of the tending of the household – “[female] housekeeper”; the increasing isolation and loss of authentic “recognition” of many priests within many parishes; the uncertainty of the priestly image; the weak decision-making ability and psychic instability of many young persons, to be able to live a “healthy” unmarried life in the present-day sexually overheated society). The situation that has thus greatly changed as a whole from the previous situation is in itself not yet a decisive argument against the law of celibacy, but it calls for a very serious examination of the question from very many points of view.”

They offered this request with no expectation of outcome. They respectfully shared input and recommended that the scope of vantage include many views. I am happy, that even if my opinion may not fully resemble any one viewpoint in a potential discussion, it is valued. It really isn’t that farfetched either. I so cherish our clergy and respect their sacrifices. The overwhelming majority of these men (almost all) manage to keep true to their vows. But that doesn’t mean that it is best for them to live unmarried lives. I am of the opinion that it is not. The point was raised by the bishops and I agree with that point. Now clearly, since the letter was written in 1970, nothing came of it. But something came of it for me. Even if they would never invite me to contribute to the actual discussion, my opinion is not alone. Moreover! my opinion doesn’t make me less of a believer or unusual.
Recently, while facilitating an RCIA student, our pastor broke down differences between doctrine and dogma. During that discussion, he landed on the tradition of married, and then non-married clergy throughout history. He said that, although he honors his vows, he would love a wife. That honesty was so helpful for the future members of our Church. It is not sinful to take issue with a man-made rule. I’m still here and I believe I am in the best place. I have faith that my pastor will not falter in his vocational arena. I sincerely think we would be a healthier Church if we did away with the law of celibacy. I can’t fake respect for a rule just because I am expected to. It would cheapen my declaration of respect for what I do believe in. If that is unusual, so be it.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 12:57 AM (EDT):

Cradle, You are describing a normal journey of faith. Those mysteries of the rosary should have gotten your heart thinking, didn’t they? And the words of the devotions and the stations? When you were a child you thought like a child… But that does not excuse crassly calling receiving the sacraments a Catholic car wash of sacraments. If you recognized now what you received then, whether or not you appreciated them at that age, you could never use terms like that. You have been given treasures greater than all the treasures on earth and you dismiss them like junk. It is good that you have read the Bible but millions read the Bible and lead themselves astray. Jesus Christ opened the Bible to the Apostles and to the great saints. Our teaching magisterium knows the interpretation HE put to passages. To rely so heavily on your own thinking is a lack of humility and may be why you haven’t had those extraordinary experiences others have had. God opposes the proud. I can see that you want to love the true Jesus. That is always very pleasing to Him. Don’t be an obstacle to Him showing you the whole TRUTH. Hell does exist. That little child that has some fear was not so dumb. We should work out our salvation in fear and trembling it says somewhere. Presumption is not a virtue. God bless.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Mar, 3, 2011 12:29 AM (EDT):

Pam - A “Catholic Car Wash of Sacraments” is the way I describe having gone through the processes of being Catholic, rote & not being present in what I was doing. Infancy: Baptism. Second grade: Reconcilliation and Communion. Seventh grade: Confirmation. Check. Check. Check.

Surely I’m not the only person to feel this way, am I? Kathy suggested I call myself “Cradle Christian”. Although I was Roman Catholic for all my life, it was only about 15 years ago that I became a real and practicing Christian. While I am a Cradle Catholic, I am not a Cradle Christian.

I didn’t even know what it was to be a Christian, until I read the Bible.
The nuns were great - I got a terrific education. But I learned nothing of ETERNAL VALUE about what it is to be Christian. I was not Christian. I was merely a good and practicing: Catholic.

Many, & I mean many, Christians ask Catholics, “Are Catholics Christian?”
It’s so common that a priest mentioned it in a homily a few months ago! He said, “Of course, Catholics are Christian.”

I’ve heard it asked too. Since he said it in a homily, I’ve been asking fellow Catholics if they too, have been asked that. Even the boys on Catholic Answers have admitted that Christians ask them too. So common a question doesn’t happen in a vacuum. Why would so many people think Catholics are NOT Christian? Surely that deserves some thought.

Much of the reason for it would apply to me, who was Roman Catholic for all my life, with both sides of my family as Roman Catholic, and yet, I only became Christian (and understood what it means to BE a Christian) 15 years ago. And only after reading the Bible, and studying it.

I am of the age where in my family, the motto was “The Family that Prays Together, Stays Together”. I have fond memories of kneeling down in front of the statue of the Blessed Mother that hung in the hallway of my childhood home, and praying the rosary with my family. It was I that would drag my mother to 6:30AM Mass frequently, when I was in grade school. I loved the Tuesday night Mother of Perpetual Help devotions.
I loved (and still do love) Benediction, and Stations of the Cross.

But even with all that, I did not know God. With what I did know, I had a warped idea of Him. As long as I was treating people as I wished they’d treat me, He was happy. But get on His bad side, and if I DIED in that state, God help me!!! (?)

I had no security in my position in His family. None. I’d never even heard of the concepts St. Paul wrote about in his 13 New Testament letters before and I’d never given it any thought. I was just works based - trying to be good, and trying to live life under God’s radar screen, because (I thought) if He got wind of me, He’d either make my life miserable or send me to the mission field. Neither sounded good. So Mass on Sundays and Holy Days? Check. No meat on Fridays during Lent? Check.

I am not a re-vert. I never left the Roman Catholic church and I never went to ANY other church, NONE at all. The only thing I did differently was to read the Bible, and accept it, believing everything in it, from the Table of Contents to the Maps, realizing it was for me, and written by God, through men.

Now I accept the Bible as The Deposit of Faith. And anything, and I mean anything, that differs from what it says in His Holy Word, is something I hold up to great scrutiny. I don’t care if it comes from a beloved Church Father, a Pope or a 4th century saint. Like the Bereans, I test the spirits, “holding fast to what is true.” It’s easy to spot truth from error, just from reading the Bible.

At a class reunion two years ago, I learned I’m among the few of our high school class that still goes to Mass. Surely that too, can’t be just my experience. My fellow students went through the Sacraments, as did I. Yet the most important and critical point about our faith is that which has ETERNAL VALUE. That is ALL that matters, looking at the Big Picture of Eternity with Him.

I apologize if I offended you by calling the Sacraments a Car Wash. In the Bible, God has statements such as “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me.” & “On that day, they will come to me and say, ‘Lord, lord! Did we not heal in your name, and prophecy in your name?’ and I will say to them, “DEPART FROM ME, I NEVER KNEW YOU.”

There is a mention of the Church of Laodicia that was neither hot nor cold. God said He will “spit them out” of His mouth, because He finds them nauseating. Those things are really important. We must have a heads up about that. Whatever it takes to get our attention, I think we need to go for it.

Right now, I am HOT for Jesus. And I show it, by trying to entice other fellow Catholics to get into the Word of God: the Bible.

The worst thing I can do is to sit back, take the easy way out, never offending anyone, and never speaking of matters that have ETERNAL Value. I choose Jesus. Most Catholics choose Rome. If Rome is wrong, we will have to answer for disregarding God’s truth found in His Word: the Bible.

The best case scenario is with Pope Benedict, a church historian, to put out some kind of edict that decrees (makes it mandatory) for pastors, bishops, et al, to TEACH THE WORD OF GOD, all of it, verse by verse, in season and out of season, and IN CONTEXT. And I pray that the Vatican will learn the writings of Paul. The Book of Romans is thought by many to be the Christian Constitution. Catholics deserve to be taught that.
And now.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 10:50 PM (EDT):

@New Observer and Kathy, Surely we agree more than we disagree. Thank you for your support. Priests find out all kinds of things from their parishioners that they would rather not hear. If the pastor did not explain to those people that transubstantiation was foundational to the Catholic faith, he was remiss. They are going to a social gathering or something.
@Cradle Do you see the inflammatory language - “Catholic Car Wash of Sacraments - You are spitting on Jesus Christ. Scourging Him. What is up with that? Will Unbent chastise you for your lack of charity? The sacraments are all in the Bible. As to what you didn’t learn, it sounds like we are close in age and it was all in the Catechism. “Why did God create you?” “To know, love and serve Him in this world and to be with Him in the next.” Baltimore Catechism. Sound familiar? That one question puts the onus back on you. Actually our parents are the ones with the primary responsibility to teach us the faith. Please don’t say you went through Catholic schooling with nuns and learned nothing. That just isn’t true. You were a kid. You might not have studied or cared. Did mom and dad relate God to everyday life for you? Show you him working in your life? Gather the family for the rosary? That’s where Catholics are formed.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 9:55 PM (EDT):

Kathy - I’ve been speaking out for church reform for 10 years, ever since the clergy sex abuse scandals broke in Boston. For all those 10 years, I have been “Cradle Catholic” in blogs.

While I appreciate your suggestion that I call myself “Cradle Christian” that would be untrue, and really deceptive. God knows that while I was baptized Roman Catholic as an infant, and I went through the Catholic Car Wash of Sacraments (Reconcilliation, Communion, Confirmation, Marriage, have received the Sacrament of the Sick), I was not really a Christian until around 15 years ago, when I got a hunger to read the Bible. I was just going to Mass each Sunday, doing my “duty”, since I was a child. I was a “good” person, that tried not to harm anyone.

It was as a result of having had an injury, and I was brought to my knees, and a Catholic friend suggested I read Psalms. She would quote verse often to me, from the Bible. I’d always wanted to read the Bible, and I told her I admired her ability to remember verses that were as if they were written to ME, and of how helpful they were. So she loaned me her easy to read Bible. I sat down with it, and in 4 months, I’d read the whole Bible, from cover to cover.

That was the BEST thing I ever did in my life. God became REAL to me, His character, His nature, and even the Holy Trinity became real to me.
My prayer life changed (and by the way, I do not speak in tongues, although I have Bible-literate Catholic friends that do…) and I never had any “experience”, although I have Bible-literate Catholic friends that did…

But it has been WONDERFUL - and knowing the Truth sets us free! As I read the Bible, I kept asking myself, “WHY DID THEY NEVER TEACH ME THIS?”
I had 12 years of Catholic education (and in those days, we were taught by nuns who dressed like nuns!) They were all well-meaning, but we never had Scripture.

I’ve always questioned things - not just matters of religion, but everything. It’s why I speak up when I’m around liberal people that support homosexual marriage, or that have no problem with abortion - even late term (God help us). I always speak up, when I see something amiss.

But it was only about 15 years ago, that reading the Bible became very, very important to me, and over the years, I came to recognize my place in God’s Kingdom: I am a slave of Jesus. He is the Head of the Church, The Body of Christ. There are Catholics in His Body - and there are believers of all denominations and races. The Bible UNIFIES. It’s so easy to communicate with other fellow Christians. I have a weekly Bible study in a Catholic parish, along with a couple Protestants. It works great. The Holy Spirit is the teacher. No matter my name: I serve Him.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 9:47 PM (EDT):

Unbent Woman - Thank you so much for the kind words you wrote defending my obligation to speak out about matters of my Catholic heritage. You make excellent points about our church history, and the issues that surrounded celibacy.

While married priests will not be an end unto itself, I call for an end to it being mandated because 1) it would be to take Scripture in its proper context, and 2) it would be the loving thing to do, because it is not good for man to be alone, and having a “help-meet” would be healthy for the whole church; 3) it gives women their proper role in the church: as priest’s wives (not as priests themselves).

It is so rare for any of us to even HAVE an opinion, let alone to share & to vocalize it, questioning anything about our faith, that I have learned it can be brutal in the trenches.

I constantly hear from fellow Catholics: “You sound Protestant.” I find it odd so many Catholic apologists that WERE Protestant don’t question more Catholic practices, such as celibacy, and based on Scripture. It makes me wonder what kind of Protestants they were.

Were they naive always? Were they that easy to fool, always? Do they not see the specific verses in Scripture for qualifications for men in ministry? It’s all right there. Even with all the problems w/ abuse, how can they still keep their eyes shut to His Word, taken in context?

By the way, we’ve only seen the FIRST of the scandals - by all accounts of experts, the next wave of sex scandal news will come from the mission field.

And if the statistics were released - meaning dioceses opening their files regarding all complaints that have come in, and they no longer protect clergymen that have “lapses” - the abuse of women by priests will make the statistics for the abuse of children and teens pale, by comparison. It will be staggering.

“Lapse” didn’t merit a nickname, for nothing. This common phenomena has it’s own NAME!! We pew people must recognize this and speak up for healthy, God-honoring change. I’m glad you came back to contribute to this blog.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 9:26 PM (EDT):

New Observer and Pam,

I think we are all in agreement on this:

There is a huge chasm between what the average Catholic DOES know about his faith, and what he SHOULD know about his faith. (I would also add, that is it often through no fault of his own.)

That is precisely the point I was touching on with the use of deceptive blog names.

Someone could come here to learn more about their faith, and end up more confused than when they first came.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 8:03 PM (EDT):

Pam, I understand the truth of what you are saying. The reality, however, is I am only letting you know that my Pastor told me many parishioners over years have often told him they do not accept transubstantiation. Knowing the people of the parish as I do, these people are not the type to delight in opposing status and bring others into their way of understanding. This is an older-type parish with many life-long Catholics. They consider themselves “Catholic” while disagreeing but still are in good standing. I think this says more about how the parish or church goes about explaining what Catholics really should believe. They do not do a good job of communicating the fundamental aspects of the faith. People are not going to check out some online link nor buy or read the Catholic Catechism. Good Lord!, most would not even know where to find the Book of Ruth or Corintians in the Bible let alone start reading the Catechism. Pam, one of the basic problems is that the mass is not structured in format for teaching faith and many Catholics have no understanding of the faith beyond the age of grammar school. And that assumes “if” you went to Catholic grammar school. Imagine what little understanding those Catholics know who did not. Too often the church has an expectation that what you should or should not believe comes to you by clairvoyance.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 7:38 PM (EDT):

@New Observer, I would not agree that you can be “Catholic” and disagree with transubstantiation. If you do not believe that is Christ truly present, body, blood, soul and divinity and you are no longer striving to believe it and follow Church teaching on this, you are not Catholic. You may be some form of Christian, you may attend Catholic Mass, but not Catholic.
Unbent, You are putting a spin on things or perceiving from an unusual perspective. Don’t see where you see all the nastiness. The sex abuse scandal in the Church is not a reason to bring marriage into the Church. As I stated here or on another blog about Fr. Cutie, if a man will break his vow or promise, marriage is not the answer. Any vow or promise there will also be broken. Repentance, confession, prayer and grace are the answer. Marriage is a red herring. These are spiritual battles that are being fought and they need to be fought with spiritual weapons. There are alot of people who believe the Church should be smaller if it is going to heal. You can’t be at peace inviting Satan into the temple and still say you LOVE Christ. We agree on that. It’s like spitting in his face and saying you love Him. It’s just totally incongruous. It’s a problem too large for man to solve. God has a plan. He gave Satan his 100 years and Satan did alot of damage, but he didn’t extinguish faith or THE faith. We need the Holy Spirit to guide us to GOD’S answer to this. God bless.

Posted by unbent woman on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 6:41 PM (EDT):

Goodness me…..while our Church burns. I hope there are no teens or young adults reading and thinking that only those not struggling with part, or even a majority, of their faith, can call themselves “Catholic”. I was actually excited to experience the exchange of feelings surrounding the issues OUR Church is facing. While I was busy for a couple weeks, things changed. Bummer.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 6:11 PM (EDT):

@ New Observer

I agree with your points above.

My concern over the name “Cradle Catholic” has more to do with confusing those not well formed in the faith, who might be reading NCR’s blogs to learn more about their faith.

One would suppose that the person using Cradle Catholic as a name, would be espousing legitimate Catholic teaching. Instead the person using the name is espousing Anti-Catholic teaching most of the time.

When Matthew Warner brought up the very point I was concerned about, I took it as fraternal correction for Cradle.

No one has said Cradle cannot discuss here (open discussion is good!), only that the blog name is very misleading.

While I disagree with much of what Cradle states, he/she usually states his/her case with charity. But a person can charitable, have an open discussion, and use a blog name that is not deceptive (especially to the lukewarm in faith.)

I’m not going to go on forever on this subject,(you’ll be glad to know!) but I do feel that Matt made a very valid point, and gave some fraternal correction. I want to make sure Cradle understands why I think the name is deceptive, and the resulting injury it could cause.

Since charity has prevailed in the past, perhaps charity will prevail again, and Cradle can switch to a less deceptive name.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 5:06 PM (EDT):

Kathy16670, You raise some worthwhile points to Cradle Catholic. People who are born and raised into Catholic families often use that term. It’s also important to consider that Catholics are allowed to disagree and we do not all share the same opinions. I know Catholics who are not in lock step on every doctrinal matter including transubstantiation, but that does not render them Protestant as you suggest. The Catholic faith should be strong enough and open to handle disagreement and be willing to converse intelligently when questions arise. Satan loves such division and carping among the bretheren.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Mar, 2, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

@ Cradle C ~ Pat

You chose the name “Cradle Catholic” which implies a person rock solid in their faith. You then go on to post why the Catholic Church is wrong (using mostly Protestant arguments and lingo.)

If you chose the name “Proudly Protestant,” or “Cradle Anti-Catholic,” no one would question you. The name and the arguments would match.

To address your comments to me:

“Catholics often display uncharitable attitudes,”

Yes, sadly this is true. It is a reality of human nature. However, if we are to be honest, it is not just a “Catholic thing.” Any denomination can have the same said of it. Also the same can be said of “lukewarm faith.”

alientating those of us that bear fruit that displays we are in the Body of Christ

Please explain how you feel you have exclusive rights to “us that bear fruit?” To my discernment, TherseEE, and Pam have both born fruit with their witness to the TRUTH (although you have not accepted it.) Remember about 100 comments ago when TereseEE went through line by line with the Greek words to help you?
It is OK to disagree, and have dialog over it. But it should be done with charity, and HONESTY. To claim you “bear fruit” only, is not true.

but we do not tow the Vatican line.

And therefore should not call yourself “Cradle Catholic.”

So wouldn’t you agree that this too, is deceptive, passing themselves off as “Christian”?

People who get crabby sometimes can’t call themselves Christian? NO, I can’t agree with that one.

People who are Catholic should not go onto Protestant sites, identifying themselves as Protestant and then argue Catholic theology. It’s basically a lie. (And vice versa.)

For the record, I was joking when I called myself “Pat”.

I understood it to be a joke, but since it was what you offered, it stuck.

Matthew did not ask me to change my blog name

He most certainly did. Here is his quote:

Posted by Matthew Warner on Tuesday, Feb 22, 2011 3:45 PM (EST):
Cradle Catholic - why do you call yourself Catholic? It is quite clear that, while much of what you say is in agreement with being Catholic, you seem very clearly to be a protestant and adhering to some of your own traditions of men - such as private interpretation and perhaps sola scriptura.
I appreciate your contributions here to the discussion, but might I suggest a more accurate title since you are clearly not Catholic and don’t seem to understand a lot of what the Catholic Church teaches or what she is. I just don’t want other readers to get confused.
Thanks!

My Goodness. It has been a while since I have checked in….things have become rather ugly. Pam, what is this Maxim you know about? Cradle is boxed in the corner for having a voice. Don’t worry Cradle, you are in great company when it comes to the Bible and the history of the Church itself. Our very own pope signed a request in 1970, asking for the urgent discussion of the law of celibacy in the Church. I will footnote below for those more interested in a fight than a respectful discussion. Although I am saddened by the erosion of what was earlier, a respectful exchange here, I am not surprised. This type of bullying is rampant because folks are scared. They are scared that the Church will go bankrupt. They are scared of change. Mostly, they are scared to admit that they have been supporting an institution that has promised to be The Way, The Truth and The Light….and in reality, they have been supporting the most vulgar of sinners and those who chose to conceal those very sins. And then there are those who are afraid to remain silent. Christ taught us to rebuke the scribes….Stand for peace that is only possible with fairness and respect for all. I have not seen a lack of humility in the wonderments of Cradle. The possibilities that she presents, exist deeper in the bedrock of our Church, than the very tradition of celibacy! You may argue, and some probably will, that there was no financial incentive for the prohibition of clerical marriage in the first place. I firmly believe there was, based on the overwhelming historical evidence. Whatever the motivation, men of the clothe, right up to our current pope, have wanted to explore the repugnant fallout of this, apparently, self serving change in tradition. There is no arguing the fact that Dioceses and Archdioceses all over, are filing for bankruptcy prior to the mandatory disposition of damaging testimony. This is also financially motivated; the difference is, however, that the Church need not imagine the future to see victims. They stand before it begging for justice. To save face, they arrogantly re-victimize those they have already forsaken. By filing before deposition, they cut the throat of clergy positioned to give testimony. This testimony would affirm the stories of those raped by our priests. This testimony would expose the intentional cover-ups. This is fact. It is happening EVERYWHERE! So I ask….who are you. WWJD? Would He seek justice? Would He go back to what worked (even if it bought less bling) like Cradle is suggesting we explore. Or would He leave the raped children out to dry, yet again, all for the survival of a “religion”. Myself…..I would sooner present to God, a Church fashioned from the rubble of a fallen dynasty, that owned its sins and made right its wrongs. Than a bright, gilded, rich, UNJUST hierarchy that left the least of us begging for repair. A little food for thought.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Mar, 1, 2011 12:33 AM (EDT):

Cradle, When Jesus came he illuminated the Old Testatament. He changed many perceptions. Christ said mens hearts must change. We need to set our sights and orient our lives to things above. Paul spoke about it is better to live as brother and sister. Christ wants us to embrace the spirit.He is calling us to love our spouses with His love which would be very powerful in and out of bed, but also very pure and beautiful, not merely pleasure oriented,definitely not Playboy/Maxim type relationships but seeing the wonder and beauty and pleasure of the other and of Gods work. Reading only the Old Testament without seeing its fulfillment in the New Testament is not really understanding what God wanted us to know.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Feb, 28, 2011 11:11 PM (EDT):

Kathy16670 - Catholics often display uncharitable attitudes, alientating those of us that bear fruit that displays we are in the Body of Christ, but we do not tow the Vatican line. So wouldn’t you agree that this too, is deceptive, passing themselves off as “Christian”?

For the record, I was joking when I called myself “Pat”. It is a name that could be male/female. Matthew did not ask me to change my blog name - I did it on my own, to be funny, and to prove a point. I am and will always be: Cradle Catholic.

With that said, the important name with which I identify is Christian.
There is but one Body of Christ.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Monday, Feb, 28, 2011 8:04 PM (EDT):

@“Cradle Catholic ~ Pat”

You are again displaying why Matthew Warner asked you to change your blog name.

It is deceptive.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Feb, 28, 2011 6:55 PM (EDT):

Pam - regarding even if one is married, it’s better to live as brother and sister:

Only in the prudish Roman Catholic heirarchy is that kind of thinking broached seriously. Yet it’s laughable. Have you ever read the Song of Solomon? It’s about married love. Solomon calls his wife: his sister, and she calls him: her brother. But read the WHOLE book, in context, and you’d have to have a glass of water nearby, to hurl it in your face, that book gets so hot. Puts Hollywood to shame. Their relationship was not platonic.

Young Jewish boys were not even allowed to read that book until they were a certain age, and males were not even considered men, until they were married, and experienced in ALL the aspects of life as a man. Marriage isn’t just sex.

It’s annoying and demeaning to women for the church (Rome and pew people) to imply that all women are good for are is as a sex partner, or to make a baby, and then become like the Virgin Mary again.

Thanks be to God, for God and His Word. If more couples read the Song of Solomon and lived what it teaches, it would single-handedly reduce the number of divorces in the United States. And Rome needs to realize that this book is about Marriage between one man and one woman, and how to keep the relationship successful.

It’s not ME that thinks this - it’s right there, in the Bible. So Pam, forgive my bluntness back at you: which is more prideful, to point someone to the Bible (as I do) or to continue to defend a practice (celibacy) that runs contrary to the specific mandates God writes about in Scripture?

Posted by Pam on Monday, Feb, 28, 2011 12:17 AM (EDT):

Cradle, Please excuse my bluntness, but your lack of humility is showing. The Pope was wrong and you are right? Not impossible, but not probable. The sacrament of ordination comes with many powerful graces and they are assuredly more powerful than any received through matrimony as wonderful as those are. And Paul very clearly states it is better to be unmarried and that even if you are married it is better to live as brother and sister if you can. He was very much aware of the struggle between the flesh and the spirit. Today’s reading was you can not serve God and mammon. We aren’t supposed to be like the rest of the world. And as to closeness to God, it is a grace given by Him. He gives it generously and freely to all who love Him and those who show that love by how they actually live, like the woman who sees a soul in a husband others only see as a scoundrel, will naturally draw down that grace. Those who are in holy marriages and pass on that faith draw it down equally, though I suspect. There is no marriage without a cross no matter how much the spouses love the lord. God bless

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Sunday, Feb, 27, 2011 8:58 PM (EDT):

Pam - your sincerity comes through in your last two posts, as does the thought you’ve put into it.

I agree with you here:

1) some of the men may never truly had a calling to the priesthood, in fact, about 40 years ago, the church was still planting vocation seeds into boys as young as 13 years old, and suggesting to them they leave their families, and go to the “minor” seminary (high schools to form priests). They were never given a real chance at life, and the real option to know what it was the Vatican was asking them to give up, because most had not even dated. It is most definitely the Vatican that is asking priests to give up women (or other men). It’s not God. If it were God that called for MANDATORY celibacy in the Latin rite, we would know. There wouldn’t be a shadow of a doubt about it, and there would not be the Eastern rite to choose from. There would be ONE UNIFIED way.
I know a man that had a real calling to be a priest, he also wanted to be married. So he left the Roman Catholic church, and is now a wonderful (conservative) Anglican married pastor with children. How sad he had to LEAVE the Roman Catholic church of his youth.

2) I agree with you that God gives us grace to avoid temptation, and that is true for ALL of us, not just clergymen. No UNmarried person ought to be having sexual relations with ANYONE, outside of marriage. One “tool” God gave those that are not called to celibacy is: marriage. There is sanctifying grace IN marriage, and celibate Catholic clergymen are DENIED that grace, by the Vatican. This denial of that grace is what makes so many of us Catholics, even MEN that are CEO’s of companies, and powerful in the secular world, turn into second grade altar boys around priests, “Yes, Father.” “No, Father.” Whatever Father wants, Father gets, is the motto. I know a priest whose parishioners depend on HIS whims about the size of the Christmas trees each year. “Oh, we don’t know if Father wants three large trees, or four small trees this year.” = That was the answer I got from a woman that did the church environment a few years ago. How many men must decide for their own families, about the size of their family’s Christmas trees? Few, if any. They’d just pay for them, and let their wives and kids decide about such a small matter. But with Father, he has a hissy fit, if things are not just perfect (his idea of perfect, not yours.) - the result of not having to compromise, & have sanctifying grace from it.

3) We MUST pray for our priests. I agree. We must pray that God’s will be done in their lives, and that they have what is best for them. The first thing God said was NOT good was for man to be alone - and He did not mean for the priest to be in an all-male environment. He meant man and woman together, are good.

To your post to Carolyn, we are ALL to be focused on God. We just have different roles. The idea that celibacy is a BETTER state than marriage is wrong. I know it was a Pope that said that - in about 1954. But he was wrong. A pope in 1954 does not know more than Paul. And Paul wrote repeatedly that ordained ministers are best married men, with children, “For if a man cannot manage his own family with dignity, how can he take care of the church of God?” =1Tim. 3: 1-5 & Titus Chapter 1.

As for being “closer” to Jesus, the ideal is what Paul wrote, “I have been crucified with Jesus” and “it is no longer I that lives but He that lives IN me.” - we can’t get any closer than that. None of us can. We are ONE Body of Christ, with different ROLES. Ordained men and religious women are not called to be “holier”. Frankly, a saved woman married to an unsaved man, that makes life miserable for her, can, by her unconditional love for him, be even MORE holy than a woman with a saved husband and in a healthy marriage.

By holding her tongue- unless of course, it is physical, and she needs to find outside help - the woman in the bad marriage can find more of God’s grace, and be more sanctified, thus, closer to Jesus.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Feb, 27, 2011 4:09 PM (EDT):

Carolyn, Further comments on your post. The leaving everything is meant for the clergy and religious particularly. Jesus said “If you want to be perfect sell everything, take up your cross and follow me.” That is the vocation of priests and nuns, that perfection. They are called to a closer union with God by virtue of their state. Peter and Paul had a right under Jewish law to marry and Paul explains that it is not a sin, but it is not as high a calling as celibacy. Married people have duties that draw them away from total focus on God. Paul is also very clear about that. They strive for union with God and love of God but not the perfection that leaves everything for Him.

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Feb, 26, 2011 11:19 PM (EDT):

Cradle, the crux of the matter is you are thinking marriage is the solution to a problem of integrity to a promise of celibacy. It will never be. Some of the men who are struggling may never really have been called to the priesthood and some may have just fallen. But the answer is always GRACE. If a priest takes a vow of chastity or a promise of chastity before God, it is a serious matter and God is on the priests side, but temptation exists in this world, single or married and a man who will break a vow will break it single or married - because the issue is temptation and how it is dealt with. Do we run to God or rely on ourselves and the world. Do we avoid occasions of sin or entertain the temptation? Do we call it a sin or rationalize it? This is what you are avoiding. You are trying to change rules instead of using the tools Christ has given us to fight temptation and they are prayer, self-denial, faith, trust, sacrifice, Eucharistic adoration etc. That faith that God will be TRUE TO HIS WORD and will GIVE HIS GRACE is what has been missing in these men’s lives - NOT marriage. And we have a part in it because they depend on our prayers as well.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Feb, 26, 2011 6:04 PM (EDT):

Pam - Prior to the sex abuse scandals becoming commonly known, priests and bishops abusing alcohol was the big problem. It was so well known, places were established for celibate Catholic clergy to go & address it.

It was after the places were established to address the rampant alcohol abuse that places were established to house sex offenders, to try to rehabilitate them, and then bring them back into ministry. Even bishops blame that on Catholic psychologists at that time, that thought pedophiles could be rehabilitated. Even bishops NOW know they were wrong.

If you indeed ARE praying for God’s will to be done, the first thing you would do is to read the Bible IN CONTEXT and find the verses that apply to those in ordained ministry, and insist the Vatican obey God’s Word.

As for “leaving everything” - we are ALL supposed to leave everything to follow Jesus. We are to be “dead to self”, crucified with Jesus in our hearts, turning our lives and all we own over to Him, so He can live IN us. It is no longer us that lives, but He IN us. That is not reserved for ordained ministers. It’s for everyone.

That does not mean that we all become nudists, and live outdoors, because we’ve left our homes and our clothes inside, or men become wife abandoners and dead-beat dads; or mothers do not fulfill their wifely and motherly responsibilities, because they are 100% focused on Jesus, 24/7.
None of that would honor God. Alcoholic priests and priests with anger managment issues also does not honor God.

All Christians are called to be good witnesses to the world. We are to be IN the world, but not OF the world, be we clergymen or laymen. Having a reputation for being an alcoholic is not a good witness. Being known for having a short temper is not a good witness. How many priests would be considered “not good witnesses” due to drinking too much, and having an out of control tempers?

I agree with you about one thing: GOD’S will be done. Not mine, not yours, and not the Vatican’s, IF it differs from what we KNOW is God’s will, right there, clearly stated, and in the Bible.

Priests, bishops and popes should be allowed to marry, at any time in their lives. Even St. Paul wrote in 1Cor. 9:5, “Do not Barnabas and I have the right to…” a wife.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Feb, 25, 2011 11:54 PM (EDT):

Cradle, You still haven’t given a source. Saying someone said so in a paper doesn’t make it any more of a fact. Just more spin. And Jesus Christ asked his apostles to leave EVERYTHING, including family to follow Him. God’s grace is enough. It’s been proven and lived by holy men and women for over a thousand years. So many saints died rather than be forced into marriages because their love of God was so strong. And who the heck is the judge of “homosexual inclinations?” Who has become God and is walking around knowing all? Don’t you see how sinful this kind of thinking becomes? You don’t want to acknowledge or address Pope Leo XIII vision. Satan has had one hundred years of corrupting minds and hearts and souls. Let’s pray God’s will, not yours or mine be done and pray for conversion.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Feb, 25, 2011 11:36 PM (EDT):

Actually, the statistics I used come from the church’s own insiders. That was the figure given by Tom Plante, PhD, that wrote articles fairly recently about the clerical sex abuse scandals. It was reprinted in our diocesan newspaper.

Plante said elsewhere the figure may be closer to 50% with homosexual inclinations. I used the lower 45% figure. Most definitely 22% is by anyone’s standards, conservative.

That does NOT mean homosexually inclined men would in any way harm children. But the majority of the abuses of teenage boys were by homosexually inclined clergymen. And there are few statistics about how many homosexual clergymen (priests and bishops) coerce other men into having sex.

As for heterosexual priests having sexual relations (called a lapse) with women, all experts I’ve read agree those numbers, if released, would make the abuse of children, pale, by comparison. It’s not hard to find this information - we need only keep our eyes open, and see it.

Let priests (bishops and popes) marry. It’s not a human solution to a problem. The first thing God said was NOT good, in Genesis, is for man to be alone.

If our clergymen could marry, and live lives such as outlined in Song of Solomon, teaching that book to others the way it should be taught, that alone would single-handedly make divorce rates take a downward spiral. It would make “handsome” men off limits to women that think like Kentuckyliz. It would make marriages stronger. It would bring health to the church.

God is the author of Song of Solomon. God is the author of marriage. God has the solution. All we need do is to listen and OBEY Him. Pew people need to wake up, and no - we cannot give up.

Posted by Pam on Friday, Feb, 25, 2011 11:09 PM (EDT):

Boy, Cradle, you don’t give up. Where do you get your statistics? How does the song go? “God alone is enough!” Stop pushing more problems and human solutions on the Church!

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Feb, 25, 2011 9:47 PM (EDT):

Kentuckyliz- You wrote, “Now that he’s not a priest…”

What does the fact that he’s no longer a priest have to do with him being off limits?

The time to pursue someone romantically is BEFORE the person is married. AFTER they are married: no matter how handsome they are, it’s hands off. The man is taken. That goes for ANY married man, clergyman or layman.

There are NO “Mr. What a Wastes”. If they’re single, woo them. If they are married, they are not going to waste. Their wives & children need them.

With 22-45% of Roman Catholic clergymen having homsexual inclinations, due mostly to the insistence by the Vatican on mandatory celibacy, even many priests are not “Fr. What a Wastes”. There used to be some “Fr. What a Wastes” out there. Godly men that are gwown MEN, & not boys.

So it’s high time the church allows married clergy - and if you grow up, Kentuckyliz, and get some morals, perhaps you can MARRY a single priest, and help him be a good pastor. And pray that other women at that time, do not think as you’re thinking now. What goes around, comes around.

Posted by kentuckyliz on Friday, Feb, 25, 2011 2:12 PM (EDT):

Al Cutie is really handsome. Now that he’s not a priest, why does Brunhilda or whatever her name is get to keep him all to herself? Share and share alike! Mr. What-a-Waste! He’s too cute to hoard up just for one woman. Share the wealth!!!

/snark off

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Jan, 29, 2011 9:35 PM (EDT):

Cradle, The early Church gathered with the Apostles or the leaders they appointed for the breaking of the bread. They gathered in groups and worshipped as communities. Acts talks about it. Paul’s letters talk about it. The leaders were chosen through the Holy Spirit by the Apostles. Every Catholic is baptised priest, prophet and king. We are offering our dying to self and our prayers for our soul and the souls of others, we are proclaiming the Good News and seeing life through the lens and grace of our life in Christ, we are children of God and His heirs.
Two people about to die on a dessert island is a rather extreme example Cradle. Where it is IMPOSSIBLE to make a sacramental confession and where the two are confessing to each other with the intention of confess before God and ask HIS forgiveness He may not treat it as a sacramental confession and of course it isn’t a valid sacramental confession because some elements are missing, but He will know the heart of each person confessing. He doesn’t want anyone to go to Hell, but He is God and not man’s servant. The correct humility would make us abundantly aware that we serve Him and conform to His sacraments not that we make them conform to US. He may take into consideration that they waited to confess until they were about to die. He will definitely recognize how much He suffered to bring souls to His Father who He loves so unreservedly and how He came to save souls. Whether or not it is too little too late or is a moment of saving grace is between the soul and God. Only He knows.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Jan, 29, 2011 6:00 PM (EDT):

Pam - what did the early church do for their “Lord’s Supper” (Communion) What is the “priesthood of believers”, and what is the funtion?

If two non-ordained people are on a desert island, stranded and about to die, and each wants to confess their sins, ‘one to another’, will God forgive them, without a priest? Is it the presence of an ordained priest that makes their confession “valid”?

You wrote, “Without a priest there is no sacrament of confession or other sacraments.”

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Jan, 29, 2011 1:11 AM (EDT):

New Observer, I have a hunch Gary is referring to our need for the sacraments. Without a priest the bread and wine do not become the body and blood of our Lord. Without a priest there is no sacrament of confession or the other sacraments. Salvation is through Jesus, but He said,“Unless you eat my body and drink my blood you shall not have life within you.” He instituted the priesthood and the sacraments.

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Jan, 28, 2011 8:47 PM (EDT):

Gary, you have expressed some excellent comments but you are off base with “It is our salvation. Without them, we are lost.” You and I are not saved or lost as a result of our clergy. When we die, our Pastor and Bishop will not be there with us before God. We will stand alone before the Lord. Every person will answer for him/herself. We are saved only by the shed blood of Christ Jesus.

Posted by Gary Kirsch on Friday, Jan, 28, 2011 7:49 PM (EDT):

Only God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit know the depths of human weakness. They are the best at Calvary Love, Calvary compassion and pity for the weaknesses of man. We need to join that element of God with undue haste. We must love and pray for the priests united with Jesus on the Cross. How much prayer are we giving Fr. Cutie.

Times are most difficult. We must pray for divine wisdom and true discernment to know the things of God. Priests especially. We need them to lead us to our holiness. It is an extraordinary time we are in where priests like Fr. Cutie, living misdirected lives are leading people away from God’s truths. We are guilty of his sin if we knew about it and said nothing. We are guilty of not gracing him if we are not praying daily for priests to fall in love with their other self, Jesus, Son of the Mother of the priests vocation.

Form prayer groups in your parish and pray at lease once a week in the group. Pray daily as an individual joined with the Blessed Mother.

Pray love into the priests. Pray obedience into the priests. Let us deflect Satan and his cohorts from the souls of all priests. It is our salvation. Without them, we are lost.

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Jan, 16, 2011 6:40 PM (EDT):

Irma, that was a great explanation! Thanks

Posted by Pam on Sunday, Jan, 16, 2011 5:48 PM (EDT):

Cradle Catholic you are thinking as men think - who could live a life of celibacy? Enough men to staff every Church? YES!!!!!!! It is GRACE. They have died to the flesh. And they won’t or don’t have pitiful loveless lives unless we desert them. We should be warm and joyful and invite them over if our family permits and the chaos of our lives will help them REJOICE in the holiness of theirs! :>) And the years you say there were married priests have been long gone. Sin exists. Men and women are human. There will be people who fall. There is also sacraments for healing. You don’t solve spiritual problems with manmade solutions. And you can’t avoid the cross by regulating every moment of people’s lives. The cross will always find its way in. God DEMANDS it!

Posted by unbent woman on Sunday, Jan, 16, 2011 1:27 PM (EDT):

Davide,
It is well known in the gay and straight communities that chatty Kathys should zip it. He has been with this woman for longer than most marriages. If it wasn’t you who had the affair, then this is just gossip. You are right….Nobody wants to discuss…...gossip.

Posted by davide on Sunday, Jan, 16, 2011 12:47 PM (EDT):

It is well known in the gay community of Miami that this priest also had a gay lover for over 2 years…but no one wants to discuss this…

Posted by New Observer on Sunday, Jan, 16, 2011 2:46 AM (EDT):

The church has refused to admit they have ordained a segment of men who really have no calling at all. Those who are guilty of criminal acts should be weeded out, prosecuted and thrown in jail. This include Bishops who “knowingly” were complicit in transferring and hiding these men. Beyond that, whether single man or single woman or celibate priest, what is so difficult for an unmarried person to obey God and keep his or her pants on?

Posted by Kathy16670 on Sunday, Jan, 16, 2011 2:39 AM (EDT):

Pam,

You are 100% right!

The Priest sanctifies his flock (us,) and we are to sanctify the world around us.

When I realize what a good and Holy Priest does for me, I am so truly grateful.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Jan, 15, 2011 10:02 PM (EDT):

Irma wrote on Saturday, Jan 15, 2011 6:34 PM “@Cradle Catholic, Actually, the one thing that Catholic Church excells is the EUCHARIST!”

Cradle Catholic responds:
Irma, a Christian either has the Holy Spirit living inside of him/her or he/she does not. No amount of Eucharist consumed will get us to heaven. We can consume a chalice-full of consecrated Body and a cup-full of Blood, and it will not do a thing for someone that is not Holy-Spirit filled, and Born Again by the Spirit.

You also wrote: “Ps, by the reflection, you must know I’ve been all the time speaking about myself, I do not intend to judge or offend anybody.’

Cradle Catholic’s response:
You’re very kind. I appreciate your charitable reply. No offense taken- we all ought to be able to speak civilly, and share our ideas. It just means that we are not members of the Church of Laodicia, that Jesus said He’d spit out of His mouth, because it was “lukewarm” and neither hot nor cold. No one can think any of us writing on THIS blog take our faith casually. For that, we ALL should be grateful.

As for judging - we ARE called upon to “discern” good from bad. And the way to hone in our skills is through His Word = the Bible, God’s love letter to us all!

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Jan, 15, 2011 9:54 PM (EDT):

Pam wrote: ” The bottom line is the priest is given GRACE as is EVERY Christian because of their relationship to Jesus Christ.”

Cradle Catholic responds:
Grace is there for the asking. I agree. Grace is also given at the time of ordination, IF a man is indeed CALLED BY GOD to the ordained ministry.

But I disagree that ‘grace’ provides company for a priest, or ‘grace’ will give a priest a life-long committment and ANY of the benefits of marriage.

In fact, a priest is DENIED the Sanctifying Grace that comes from marriage. It is unnecessary because, according to the Bible (taken in context - not distorted beyond reason) and according to universal Church Tradition, from Pentecost through the year 1139, the clergy were married. That’s priests, bishops and popes. All married.

MOST of the priests (heterosexual ones) that left the priesthood over the past 40 years, have said it was MANDATORY CELIBACY that caused them leave.
Each more than likely TRIED to be faithful - but it is a tough life, if you truly do NOT have the “gift”.

How many men do you REALLY think has that gift? Enough to fill each church throughout the world? I mean - NO INAPPROPRIATE SEXUAL CONTACT WITH ANYONE. None. Zip. Nada. No women. No men (God help us). No children to fulfill them in ANY way. It is exploitation for a clergyman to have any kind of sex with anyone.

It’s ridiculous to expect men will not WANT the warmth that comes from another person - it is not biblical. God said, “It is not good for man to be alone.” MANDATORY celibacy must end.

Do you know how many alcoholics are in the priesthood? Oddly enough, in the REAL list of qualifications for men in ordained ministry, the dependence on alcohol is on the “no” list. Women are on the “yes” list.

Posted by Irma on Saturday, Jan, 15, 2011 9:34 PM (EDT):

@Cradle Catholic, Actually, the one thing that Catholic Church excells is the EUCHARIST! because it is God Himself who is present among us! He was the one who founded our church and He was also the one who, out of love for us, chose to stay with us until the end of times under the “shadow” of bread and wine. By the way it is not that Christ turns Himself into a wafer or some drops of wine combined with water like some fella was saying in one of the first comments, It is the bread and wine who turn into Christ!
If you go to any of the gospels to the parts that talk about Jesus’ apparitions after His resurrection, (I personally prefer the one of the disciples of Emmaus or Jn 21, the 3 apparition to the apostles) You’ll find that they couldn’t recognize Jesus at the first sight, there was something about His resurrected body that kept them from recognizing Him immediately, But when they experienced Him, when they spent time with Him, talking to Him or even just watching Him, they realized who He really was, the only and true God, the Saviour of all mankind!
The same happens to us when we go to the chapel (call it, mass, adoration, a simple visit, etc) When we first see the Eucharist, it can easily seem to us that it is just a piece of bread, but when we pray, when we spend time with Christ, when we contemplate Him, in other words, when we experiment in our own beings, His infinite, and i do mean infinite love for us, then just like Saul, some sort of shells fall off our eyes and we are able to see God just as He is, and it is then when we can admire His beauty, His love, His mercy.
But He knows we cannot reach Him by our own means, and that is precisely why He left us some help: the Sacraments. they are THE key element in our journey home, in our relation with God, because it is though the sacraments that we first become children of God and receive the three qualities that it implies, priest, prophet and king (baptism), it is through the sacraments that we receive the Holy Spirit and His gifts, by renewing of faith in Him (confirmation) if is also through the sacraments that our TRUE union with another being is done as an oath before God, an unbreakable, everlasting union (matrimony) or as well , it is through the sacraments that the several people who are called by God can truly follow Him, by being ordained by the hands of a bishop who was, as well, ordained by other bishop, and the same operation repeated over and over again until we reach the actual ordination who was executed by Peter, the first Pope, and before Him, it was Jesus himself who ordained His apostles (that is the sacrament of the Priestly ordination) as well, it is through the sacraments that very sick people, or elderly people can receive the extreme unction, and therefore have a direct encounter with God (that is the anointment of the sick) and finally, it is through the sacraments that we can return to our position of children of God after we have gravely offended Him (confession) I wanted to leave that one for the end, because I personally think that it is one of the most important, seeing how needy we are of receiving it frequently.
Every time we go to confession it seems we are talking to a man, and in fact we are, but He is not only a man, He is God’s advocate, He is only an instrument after all, so whenever we tell the priest our sins, He is not giving counsel or absolving them by His own means, no man has the power to do so, it is God, who is actually speaking through this man’s voice, and who is cleansing you and healing your soul through this man’s words and actions (I absolve you from your sins in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit). I know it’s hard to entrust all your weaknesses to a man just as or probably even weaker than you, it’s not like I love to go to confession either, but I’ve realized that the more open I am, and the more sincere I am when I tell the priest all my sins (and I do mean all of then for God knows them already) the more liberated I feel after the confession, and the more open I am to receive that grace and all those gifts God wants to give me, but He can’t do otherwise if I’m not willing to receive them…
To make a long story short, because I do want you to read the whole message if you please, I simply say that it was God the one who instituted the sacraments, yes, also conffesion (what you tie in this world will be tied in the heavens, what you untie in this world, will be untied in the heavens) and so, we cannot pretend to be smarted than God by thinking confession (or any other sacrament) are just a piece of nonsense, and pretending that we do not need them, when the fact is that God gave them to us as MEANS to get to Him, and to reach Him in a more purified way. And God himself said “those who have been given great, will be asked greatly…” He has created us in a catholic family, or anyhow, we have come to be catholics or to at least know little about the catholic faith, we know the means are there, we also know all the great tasks it implies to be a catholic (not only by name, I do mean a holy, true catholic) but we know as well that the reward will be far beyond our imagination. So I do invite you to reflect on this: Does a comfortable, mediocre, short life, compares to the great and eternal life we can acquire by renouncing to those comforts of this life? Don’t forget that after all, we ARE travelers on a journey home, whether we reach our destination or not, it all depends on the choices we make today.

Ps, by the reflection, you must know I’ve been all the time speaking about myself, I do not intend to judge or offend anybody.
May God bless you and your family always and give you the light and guidance you need at every moment of your life.
Please do count on my prayers
In Christ, Irma

Posted by Pam on Saturday, Jan, 15, 2011 9:29 PM (EDT):

All these responses insisting on married priests are off the mark! Everything is GRACE! The Church’s problems aren’t because of celibacy, they are because of falling into sin which can happen married or single, sexually active or celibate. This is a huge red herring. The bottom line is the priest is given GRACE as is EVERY Christian because of their relationship to Jesus Christ. He will never deny us something we need. The priesthood has become very secularized and so many priests don’t want the gift and abhor the CROSS. It isn’t that grace isn’t there for the asking. Also it is NOT a sacrifice that only serves the individual. It is as much GIFT as SACRIFICE. As a sacrifice it is giving up the sexual to be devoted to the spiritual. As a gift it is FREELY given at ordination. If someone is struggling it is because they are tempted and they need to do what EVERY Christian needs to do when tempted. This is really a crisis of FAITH. Pew people who look at things from a secular perspective are not seeing the BIG picture - GOD has a PLAN. Priests are supposed to be seeing past just the here and now. What man values isn’t so valuable in God’s eyes all the time.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Jan, 15, 2011 7:16 PM (EDT):

... Actually, William, the one thing the Roman Catholic Church excells at it charitable foundations. One does not have to be Catholic, in order to get their help. The issue of charity and compassion in the world is a separate issue from that of church structure. An atheist can be very gracious and charitable.

Muslims are known for working their way into paradise, trying to please Allah. I think it’s Buddhists and Hindus that believe in karma, so all the good work they do today may one day bounce back to them.

The Roman Church MUST as a separate and distinct issue, address its church structure, and step one is to end the practice of mandatory celibacy that could end tomorrow, with a pen stroke by the pope. Without it, there will be no trust - and priests (and bishops) will continue to exploit the faithful for sex.

Posted by William A. Kysela on Saturday, Jan, 15, 2011 6:41 PM (EDT):

Peter and Paul were both married(Pharisees had top be married), as were many of the early priests of the Church. The Roman Catholic Church was not the original church. That was founded in Jerusalem and was composed of mostly Jews like Jesus and the Apostles. I don’t see any problems with priests being married; actually the Roman Catholic Church is just about bankrupt today due to priests NOT being able to marry. I have studied the words of Christ and I can find no instruction to the apostles or disciples for not marrying.
The Churches today (all of them) are so clogged up with stupid rules and regulations that people can’t even see the beauty of Christ’s original teachings; Repentance, Salvation and Love! If you want proof of being a real disciple of Christ try on John 13:34. It’s time for Christians to act like it! Start helping those in Haiti who have NADA and try praying for those less fortunate and spreading the gospel to the nations, many of whom have never heard it and stop arguing about whether a priest can be married, a divorced person can go to Communion, and whether people are homosexual etc.and whether the host is the real Body of Christ etc. Get to work Christians!!!Note: The above arguments have been going on for centuries.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Jan, 14, 2011 6:57 PM (EDT):

I know precisely what you mean! One time when Lent just began, there was something important that had come up about the Catholic church that was in the news.

When I tried to just TELL a woman I know about it, someone who could have some influence for health in our diocese, she said, “I can’t think about this now. I’m contemplating the meaning of the Resurrection, for Lent, and to prepare for Easter.”

She never got back to me - she had no interest at all. How’s that for us being “Salt and Light” in the world?

Here’s the way the Bible says it’s to work: we have leaders that are teachers and preachers, and they equip US, the Faithful (pew people, right now) to spread the Good News of the Resurrection and forgiveness of sin.

Posted by unbent woman on Friday, Jan, 14, 2011 3:39 AM (EDT):

While I do believe celibacy is a sacrifice, it is not one that serves the Church well. Therefore, it is a self-serving sacrifice. There is a job to be done for the flock, and this contrived lifestyle impedes a priest’s understanding of real life. I run a program for my parish and I have a dear friend who would fast on the day that I needed her most. Finally, I had to ask her to fast on a different day because I needed her there, at her best, to offer stewardship. She was very kind and amended her calendar. Sacrifice by itself, does create a collective good. But if that good is more self-promoting for the the institution, or the individual sacrificing, than it is for the flock, it is no good at all. Furthermore, you want sacrifice? Look at a devoted, fair, respectful husband. That is sacrifice. I know a good number of priests who never intended on becoming pompous know-it-alls. But this ridiculous rulebook has set them up for it. They are just men. They chose their work. Some are good, some are terrible (and I am not talking about the rapists). They can’t be fired for boring folks to sleep, or going off the chain and instructing people to never discuss politics. They are praised for never having to share a marital or parenting decision. They don’t have to compromise with their spouse. Nobody snores in their bed or embarrasses them at a social function. It isn’t all bad. What is bad, is that for all of these reasons, they are even more different than the normal population. Add to this, the power of being the only vehicle to paradise. It can only lead to corruption. Not all, but too many priests are tainted with power. They don’t even mean to become tainted. It is HUMAN nature to try to find the trade-off when there is a loss of some sort. They give up normalcy, the world has benefits to which they are not privy. The trade is adoration, power, and control. Not every servant takes advantage of these perks, but what percentage of them need to be harmed before we decide it is wrong. It is wrong for them; they cannot feel proud or holy when they abuse power. It is wrong for us; because we need humble guidance. Like in the general population, there would still be bachelor priests. It is my wish, my prayer, that they again be allowed the option to marry. I can’t guess what issues existed for the majority of our Church’s history, when priests were married. But I bet they pale in comparison to the ones we have today. Knowing the Roman Catholics, they probably were monetary. It is time to look at what can make us strong morally and spiritually. Christ was not a power monger. From what I have learned, I think he would be very displeased with the power structure that has us spiraling toward bankruptcy of a Christian variety. Shameful.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Jan, 14, 2011 1:33 AM (EDT):

Pam - thank you for your kind words. Since I experienced so much, I thought about Confession a lot. I concluded that Jesus died 2000 years ago, on the cross for my sins, and back then, ALL sins were in advance.

Since I have the Presence of the Holy Spirit living inside of me, and I repented (turning from sin, turning to God) years ago, thus I’ve been justified, I really find that Christian friends - a few Catholic, and one special person that’s from Syria, and Orthodox Catholic, is what I need to know I’m in a right relationship with God. While I know I am forgiven - I still need to be aware of keeping the right relationship with Him in good order.

My experience of ‘spiritual directors’ is not good. Though not first-hand, rather, through watching a couple Catholic women friends that have priest directors, I have an overall poor opinion of it.

Two women I know, both married, OBEY their spiritual director, rarely making an important move without his advice. They follow him to the letter - even about how they think!

Once I was talking politics with one of them, and she said, “My spiritual director told me to keep from any discussion about politics or anything that was important”.

Imagine being HER child, and needing to tell her something delicate! A woman should only give such blind free-rein to her husband. Not to a priest.

While I’ve met the priest, and think he’s a nice person, he is a major control freak. (I say that nicely= just a term.) Controlling person. Perhaps your spiritual director is better. As I mentioned, it just may be through my lens that I don’t like the idea.

I still think women should counsel women and men should counsel men. My friends work just great, and I give my support and godly advice to them too, of course, using Scripture truths as a guide.

When priests are married, like the Anglicans - I know an Anglican pastor that came to the Catholic church with his wife, and daughter, and his parishioners love him (he’s too far away though..) but his life experience has been enhanced, through having the feminine balance.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Jan, 13, 2011 11:21 PM (EDT):

@Alan: How can you say practicing celibacy does not make one holy? All sacrifices undertaken for love of God make you holier.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Jan, 13, 2011 11:06 PM (EDT):

Cradle Catholic, You are right that there are alot of problems. I have found that there are priests that without naming names speak of issues revealed in confession which I believe is a breach of the sacrament because daily mass goers can figure out who is the source and puts the priest in danger of damnation for breaking the seal of the confessional. I also go to confession less, but still confess to a priest because it is a sacrament. Regardless of the corruption, Jesus stands behind that priest and with the absolution gives us forgiveness and grace. A friend can’t do that. God can, but when He knows you are avoiding the sacrament because you don’t like what you hear, you can not be certain you are absolved. God doesn’t think like man thinks. God sees everything. It would be more in keeping with the humility that God asks of us if you worried less about what you get from confession and more what you give to it. When I am totally honest about my sins and open my heart in confession to Jesus and sincerely believe the remorse I recite in the act of contrition, it doesn’t matter if I agree with the counsel, I know I truly confessed my sins. That’s what the sacrament is about. As for the counsel, you might look at a spiritual director - that pastor you like or a religious in your area. You can’t pick and choose what to believe and follow. The Church has been under attack for 100 years according to the vision of Pope Leo XIII and our priesthood is a mixed bag. We are in the thick of the mess. But Jesus is still in the sacrament.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Jan, 13, 2011 12:35 AM (EDT):

No Pam, it’s confession. As a result of knowing too many of the priests that are, frankly, better off in the pews, I don’t go to confession to a priest anymore. Instead, I confess to a woman friend the things that I need to get off my chest, and I confess directly to God. Every so often, if it’s not an issue that involves gender, I even confess to a male.

I’ve found that Christian friends that understand and that are in the Word of God are better than most priests I know. There is ONE priest that I truly respect and admire. But he has just become a pastor in a parish, and it’s been sooooo long since I’ve been happy, confessing to friends - “confess your sins, one to another” - I think that’s a Bible verse. While it would be terrific IF priests had the same qualifications and life experience as my friends - in this day and age, they just don’t.

My faith is of utmost importance to me and I am concerned with matters of Eternal Value. In the long run, that is all that counts. I just do not get closer to Jesus or understand my faith more, as a result of most priests input. Sometimes I think they signed up for a ‘vocation’ but after so many years, it’s become a ‘job’. My faith life is too important to me, to entrust it to someone doing a job.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 11:13 PM (EDT):

While I understand that some may not feel men understand female problems, we are confessing sins to a priest. Perhaps you are seeking counseling and not confessing.

Posted by unbent woman on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 6:38 PM (EDT):

Cradle/Pew Person, From one to another, I want to tell you that I know some in collars who find themselves with sentiments reflecting yours more than the Vatican’s. I have been encouraged to own my place as a person in the Church. Your presence is no less important than any other occupant in this Church. That goes all the way up to Ben! He is a person; you are a person. Many a pew persons have been instrumental in our history. God loves no one more than another. He is more pleased with some. I serve at His pleasure with my honesty and devotion. When you honestly take issue with wrong doing, you are not “only” a pew person…..you are His steward and you serve at His pleasure. Speak more loudly. You will find the righteous in your company.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 6:23 PM (EDT):

Amen, Cradle Catholic. I remember a few years ago taking time off from work and made an appointment with my Pastor to offer suggestions on improving two of our parish ministries. Not just suggestions, but I offered to facilitate, prepare and even lead with my “time, talent and treasure” btw,—a new term the church now seems to use that Protestants have used for years. My Pastor would have none of it. No discussion. End of meeting. “We have a Parish Council and a Pastoral Associate to make these decision —so thank you, but no, we cannot do this.” He did not even hear the content of what I was suggesting. Unless you are in the Parish elite or among the movers and shakers you are indeed a “pew person” and belong in the peanut gallery. Many are waiting for this Priest to be put into diocesan rotation so we can get a new Pastor. If he was a Protestant minister, they would not renew his contract.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 6:06 PM (EDT):

Thank you, Brenda, for giving your first-hand experience. That has been my experience too, but you phrased it more beautifully than I ever could have.

As for bishops, even many priests, listening to us pew people is not likely to happen any time soon. By the way, I use the term “pew people” because we really just are expected to sit in pews, PAY, and carry out pronouncements handed down by Rome, our diocese, or even our parish pastors.

We have no say at all about anything significant, and we are considered candidates for anathema, by even questioning anything that comes down the ecclesiastical pike. Here’s a for instance about how pew people are disregarded, and why I so often get frustrated in the Roman church:

Almost two years ago, a book called “The Rite” was released, about a priest from California that went to Rome to take classes in exorcism at the Vatican. I didn’t want to read the book. But a friend of mine wanted my opinion on how the material jived with how exorcism is done in Scripture. So he loaned me his copy and I read the book.

What I learned shocked me- the book is okay in terms of the history of exorcism. But nothing in it is how exorcism is portrayed in the Bible. In fact, through a live program, I was able to ask the priest who is the subject of the book, a question about how he uses Ephesians Chapter 6, the Armour of the Holy Spirit, in his work. His answer “I go to the Sacraments more, and pray more..” gave me the impression he had no idea what the Armour even was!

Further, there were Red Flags all over the book about his “mentor” a man that initially LIED to him, and who made outrageous claims throughout the book that sounded more like Hollywood to me. So I wrote a 4 page commentary on the book, and as needed and as appropriate, I shared it with other priests, bishops, etc. in the church.

Well, guess what? “The Rite” is soon to be released as a movie, and playing the part of the “mentor” that lied is Anthony Hopkins! It’s like the Vatican et al are going full speed ahead, disregarding anything that’s said about the problems with what these “exorcists” are doing.

Now please understand me: the devil is real. His large group of fallen angel helpers are real. But how these Vatican-trained priests are exorcising them is not-Bible based, and they do not even seem to be able to discern Truth from error.

The message I am sent is: What do you know? You’re just a pew person. An insignificant little pew person, expected to shut up and allow the “Magesterium” or, frankly, *anyone* with a Roman collar, to be in full authority, to RULE over the collective church, in a manner in which they see fit - and even if it tramples Biblical wisdom, as does “The Rite”. I take issue with that. But what can anyone do? We are only pew people.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 5:58 PM (EDT):

@Unbent: The problems we are experiencing in the Church are BOTH the Fr. Cutie variety and the homosexual variety. If it is true that Fr. Cutie had hands down someones pants in public etc., what he is experiencing is lust. So it is part of the problem. The denials and coverups have been devastating mostly because they seem to stem from fear of temporal consequences and that highlights are real lack of faith. God may bring us low for a while, but when we are truly repentant He brings us back up and this would be an excellant opportunity to witness to that.
@New observer: Thank you for the compliment. If I was open to His grace it was because of Him. Our God is an awesome God. As to priests being held to a higher standard, it is true in regard to celibacy, but we shouldn’t imprison them for it either. They should use prudence and dinner alone with a woman would not be prudent if she were of similar age and attractive, but if she were an elderly lonely parishioner that would be another story so blanket rules could be harmful. Also the confessional is closed and I personally would prefer it stay that way. If we look for dirt we will see it. If we look for light and goodness we will see that. Our society is very geared to seeing filth. We have an opportunity to prudently counter that by questionning someone who would raise a salacious thought or imply a problem. I have seen too many with their minds in the gutter. It hurts their own holiness worrying about everyone elses. Our priests have received the laying on of hands of the APOSTLES handed down by their Cardinal, Archbishop or Bishop! That’s something to meditate about! Hopefully THAT is impressed on them - Peter, James, John have annointed you through your Bishops hands! And we need to be their holy friends who help them laugh and relax from time to time from the stress of the job and honor their sacred HANDS that bring us the Eucharist. From some posts in these two articles on Fr. Cutie it is disturbing what seminarians are being taught! Are there any out there teaching the true faith? We have to pray and believe there are.

Posted by Brenda on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 5:31 PM (EDT):

Well, Cradle Catholic, you do have some pretty wild speculations on changing certain Church policies and the Scriptural meaning of “brothers and sisters”, but I do find myself agreeing with you in one area: If it be possible in future Counsels, I would like to see maybe women deaconesses “ordained” to counsel women in the Sacrament of Reconciliation, rather than men. Personally, I gave up a long time ago trying to confide to the priest in the Confessional any typically ‘female’ issues of sexuality or emotionality. Its not that they don’t try to empathize—but that’s just the problem, I could talk and explain until I’m blue in the face and because they are not women and have really no idea what women go through (particularly in today’s culture) I just don’t bother anymore. That said, every priest I’ve ever spoken to or confided in, in the Confessional has been extremely compassionate and professional. I wanted to say that because we really don’t hear much about the really great priests out there. But for women to expect a man, even a holy man, to understand what they go through—- I think is a bridge too far really. So yeah, I hope the bishops and the Magisterium will consider that many Catholic women go through their entire lives not feeling that anyone on earth understands them spiritually/emotionally/psychologically. Women confessors would go a long way to relieve that situation.

Posted by Alan on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 4:59 PM (EDT):

Mr. Akin:

I find your commentary and judgement harsh and offensive. I’m sure when Good Father Cutie entered the priesthood, he intended to keep his promises. Lifelong celibacy as a general policy for many is unrealistic no matter what you Roman fools have to say. It is a gift for a select few and does not make anyone especially holy.

Father Cutie is not some “fallen priest” as you put it, not like the perv who started the order that publishes this. He had honor. He left the Roman pristhood and entered another Apostolic priesthood, that of the Anglican communion, through the Episcopal Church.

Like those who live in a glass houses should not throw stones.

I’m proud to be an Episcopalian, non-papal Catholic and you all are nuttier than a fruitcake.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 4:33 PM (EDT):

Pam, thank you for sharing your Charasmatic experience—in your terms. Sometimes I hear people describe their experience as prophecy, miracles, their ability to lay on hands for instant healings, their ability to speak in tongues —all by Catholic Charasmatics. There are approximately 100 million Catholics world-wide who identify themselves as Charasmatics. I am troubled by those who use this term confusing God’s gift of grace as opposed to those well-intentioned yet deceived into self thinking and focusing on “I want to obtain”—special powers and gifts. My bishop recently presided at a convention of these people last year.

2 Corinthians 12:9
“And he said unto me, My grace is sufficient for thee; for My strength is made perfect in weakness.” That would be OUR weakness.

So it is not about OUR power and OUR desires for special gifts since He already knows our needs as indicated in the Sermon on the Mount. I am troubled by those who misunderstand by seeking **first** their own honor and talent ahead of what God has already promised to provide.

Pam, I see humilty, selflessness and gratitude in your experience. Yours surely seems one of experiencing God’s genuine love and grace poured down upon you. May you continue to walk in the Lord’s presence.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 3:49 PM (EDT):

Pam, while “a” woman and “a” man might be spiritually led, they are still in the natural —the flesh. Since you say a Priest is held to a higher standard, it is unwise for a a priest to meet or counsel a woman behind closed doors. Whenever there is a need for a Priest to meet with a woman (or child) the parish should always have an office “setting” which allows for private discussion **but** with the door always remaining open with staff in the near vicinity. The door being OPEN is a key reminder to both individuals. Furthermore, clergy meeting one-on-one with women for lunch or dinner at a restaurant for counseling or even for parish business should always—always include a third person. If, (as you say) Priests are held to a higher standard, THEY are responsible for the “setting” of where these meetings or sessions will take place. It is rather surprising that our seminaries fail to train these men in such practices which help to protect the priests, the diocese and the church as well.

Posted by unbent woman on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 3:25 PM (EDT):

The men who were priests when they were allowed to be married, were as “called” as they are today. Yes, sex is part of marriage. It, however, is only part of marriage. The sex that is plaguing our church now, is not the Fr. Cutie variety. It is gross, violating, EVIL, sin. If we continue to turn our back on that fact, the depths to which we are falling, know no redemption. With bankruptcy filings, and defensive accusations, it is clear that nobody in our hierarchy is interested in forgiveness…...just more sinful denial. Not how I run my life! I am ashamed of my home Archdiocese of Milwaukee, and the whole Roman Catholic Church! I pray for them and all of us who know better. I am excited over the prospect of a new, more Holy Church.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 3:20 PM (EDT):

New Observer, I guess I would define a charismatic experience as one where you have a personal experience of God’s love for you and involvement in your life. Where things happen in your life that are so undeniably “miraculous” even if with a little “m” by the world’s standards that you can’t deny God’s existence and love in your life. A small example from my life was as part of my conversion experience after being away from the Church for fifteen years, I was asked to pray for my sister who was ill. Praying the rosary, I realized that I believed that miracles happen and that God was real and I repented to God and asked His forgiveness. I was flooded with grace. At first I had questions. Serious doubts about certain aspects of our faith and I would ask God (Jesus) about them. Something miraculous happened. Each time I had a question, that SAME DAY it was answered! I would go to Mass and the answer was in the gospel or the homily. I would open the paper and there would be an article about the subject I was questionning. It was weird and awesome and incredible. It brought to life the words “He has counted the hairs on your head.” because He was worrying about my doubts and questions and answering them all- this nothing who had walked away from Him and the Church for fifteen years!

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 3:06 PM (EDT):

@Unbent and Irma: If it isn’t about sex then holy friendships - the love of brothers and sisters is ALL that is needed. God walked this earth celibate but loved men and women. Our priests are held to a high standard because they are called. God has loved them to the point of wanting them for himself and they need our prayers, LOVE, and support. They have found the surpassing love Jesus found: the Holy trinity, that makes all other loves pale in comparison. If women aren’t allowed to have healthy relationships with them as Jesus did with Martha, Mary, the woman at the well then they are harmed and the thinking is women are a danger, a threat, a sex object. That is unhealthy at so many levels. Then normal kindness and goodness is overwhelming and so rare that the man is deeply affected and tempted to sin. But it should be as ordinary as breathing. Love one another. This is how they will know that you are my disciples, Jesus said. You don’t love someone by isolating them from love. There are women who believe that they should dress so as to be alluring to men because men like it. They believe women and men can’t work together because the natural attraction of opposite sexes makes it impossible. These are errors, I believe. This thinking stems from insecurity, or possessiveness or reaction to homosexuality in culture or a desire to avoid all crosses etc. Women should be clean and neat and groomed, but if we want holy men we can’t feed the lower instincts. And when people are holy they don’t see sex objects at work. They have coworkers or friends or brothers and sisters in Christ or souls accompanying them on the journey. What a poverty to give that up. And if someone is acting attracted they let them know in words or actions it is out of place and unwanted. They go to confession and confess temptation and receive grace or they limit interaction if they are tempted. But they have to take on the responsibility for their personal holiness. You can not chain the world. God set us free to love in the best sense of the word - smiling at each other, doing good for each other, caring about the other. That some will fall is inevitable. That it is painful is inevitable. That grace can overcome temptation is CERTAIN. That God can redeem even if we fall is CERTAIN! Jesus told us “Men’s hearts must change!” We can’t be obsessed with the flesh and in love with Him.

Posted by New Observer on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 2:40 PM (EDT):

Pam, yesterday you addressed to Fr. George and Pastor Brad: “Too bad you haven’t had a Charismatic experience.” What exactly is this experience you are speaking of?

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 12, 2011 12:26 AM (EDT):

Lori, You say your girls are old enough to be living in a relationship with a man. And that they want to be baptised and the elders know they are in a relationship outside of marriage. Did the Elders talk to them about this and ask them why they want to be in a church that does not permit that? Did the girls want to be in a church that does not permit living together and refuse to leave the living together relationship? If either of these is true what is hard to understand? The church is upholding what it believes is necessary for salvation and the girls aren’t complying so they are dooming themselves from the start in the churches eyes. They don’t want to do what the church says is necessary. Doesn’t that make sense. It’s not judging. It is saying,“We know this is forbidden because it removes you from a relationship with Jesus (its sin). We can’t deny the truth of that. Do you accept that truth?” The girls are saying “No we don’t accept that truth.” in that case, not the church. The girls are saying we don’t want to be baptised enough to stop doing what is wrong.

Posted by Pam on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 11:32 PM (EDT):

Fr.George and Pastor Brad speak of questionning translations… SIGH! If you play with words enough they can say whatever you want. If you don’t like what they say you can play with the translation. Woe to anyone who does it. Regardless of what the agenda driven do with words, Jesus Christ is a living person. We have been given the gift of the Holy Spirit. We have the truth in our hearts. We have the teaching within us unless we’ve destroyed it. We have the teaching magisterium of the Church and two thousand years of Saints and tradition. Fr. George and Pastor Brad don’t you believe you do a disservice falling back on this? We are past that. Our Catholic Bible is reviewed and verified as reliable. Now you are sounding like Brother Mark, looking for translations (interpretations) that support your theories. Too bad you haven’t had a charismatic experience. Fr. George you are right that we don’t know who goes to hell because a mortal sin requires that the person know the sin is grave and that the person is able to consent fully to the sin and there can be reasons a person doesn’t have the ability to truly consent. Still we are all called to the NARROW road!

Posted by Irma on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 8:17 PM (EDT):

@Lisa Q: I totally disagree with your comment. Women are just as guilty as men are.. It is true that He was a priest, and so He should have acted like one. but this woman also knew who he was, and what his conditions were as a catholic priest. In my house there it this popular saying: The sin commited by the witness is the same sin of the murderer… (trying to translate it from spanish and make it have sense..) but it is true, It is not about judging, because that it not anybody’s role but God’s. but from here we can learn and be careful in the future. because surely their relationship did not start from a scratch. More likely there were unappropiate looks and flirting… So I’m just saying that its not like she is a victim or anything because she could have very well taken care of his vocation by putting aside her feelings/desires for him.
And sorry to tell you. but we all need the church for this simple reason: God founded it, and therefore it is there that we can phisichally encounter Him.
We can pretend we do not need a church and that for believing alone we will be saved (I’m not saying you can’t for God’s mercy is infinite & I do not pretend to judge anybody either) but It was Jesus who said “Those who eat my body and drink my blood will have eternal life” and in order to eat his body and drink His blood, we need to attend mass, to hear it from a priest’s voice, this priest whom Jesus ordered at the last supper. This ordination was passed from generation to generation from hand to hand between the people God called until this day’s priests. I know the Church is not perfect, because even though it is a Divine Institution, it is being run by simple men, who try their best to love God, but oviously are not perfect. But remember God said “I make all things new” so He does every time we make a mistake, He has the power to take good even of the worst situations.. So I know this may be hard, but we all are in need of The Church, the one Jesus himself established…

Posted by unbent woman on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 7:28 PM (EDT):

Lisa, It is a matter of changing the rules BACK. For almost 2/3 of our history, priests were married. Priests are human and function best in a normal human condition. We all are better with the love, counsel, and support of others. This isn’t about sex…...that is the Catholic fixation. It is about being one’s best. The gravy on the whole decision, would be the illumination of the freaks looking for safe haven.

Posted by Lisa Q on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 2:28 PM (EDT):

Surely, women are not to be blamed for what a Man does. Men have to take responsibility for their actions. If you are not cut out to be a priest, don’t become one. You can serve God and your community many ways. This is about the “Ego” of men. These men want to feel powerful and they want to get around at the same time. There’s nothing new here…Having your cake and eating it too…not original. This not complex! The rules do not need to change for any priest who can’t focus on his godly work. It’s not realistic for normal men to pretend that they are something that they are not! No need for the church to change rules on this issue. The individuals needs to do the changing!!!
TAKE RESPONSIBILITY GUYS!!

Posted by lorie on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 10:31 AM (EDT):

I asked the President of our church “who is held accountable in gods eyes for denying the girls the right to be baptised.“of course he didn’t have an answer. That is the reason why I don’t go to church anymore. To many church ppl. gossip. I can stay home and believe in god. I don’t need a church. Or the Elders coming to my house and Bible thump me. I thought a church was suppose to work together and help ppl in need. Then our church can’t figure out why there is only a hand full ppl. that comes to our church. The Elders had invited 25 ppl. to come 2 our church guess how many came none. All these ppl judging Father Albert Cuti’eS shame on u. It is in the Bible THOU SHALL NOT JUDGE. I feel if ppl think about it there isn’t anyone perfect. YOU GO FATHER ALBERT CUTI’ES.

Posted by lorie on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 9:50 AM (EDT):

I am a LDS member and my girls wanted to be baptised. Well the girls where taking there classes and the Elders knew my girls were living with their boyfriends. Well I go to church and I was told that I needed to talk to the Biship. I felt my kids were being judged. I never would have thought that the church would have judge my girls like that. I thought that we have to answer to god for our sins but, I guess we have to answer to our church. Nobody is perfect and I thought that is why Jesus died for our sins, the Elders should have been up front with the girls. My daugthers where so upset they won’t go back cause LDS church just baptised a well known drug dealer. I applaud you for being truthful. Best wishes to your family. I wished there where more ppl like you. You inspire me

Posted by unbent woman on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 2:31 AM (EDT):

Holding my breath, or tongue, is no longer compatible with my conscience. I have given everything that I am to this church. I have sponsored countless Confirmation and RCIA candidates and raised my children by The Book. I believe in the love and Guidance that I was shown by most. Right now, however, I see good men selling their souls to the Devil for silence. I know scripture and footnotes. The very first gift given to me required no reading. I was granted the knowledge of the difference between good and evil. Christ affirmed, and the Holy Spirit guides me. Justice is right, denial due to pride is sinful. All I need to know is as follows. Whatsoever I do to the least of His brother, that…I do unto Him. I will not deprive God of justice. I will not lie. If the laity provides justice for the least of us, we may find ourselves building a new Catholic Church without all of the glitz of the Vatican….but it will be one that practices what it preaches.

Posted by New Observer on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 2:05 AM (EDT):

To Unbent Woman —Before the church “might” —might even consider optional marriage for clergy, the first thing needed is a complete do-over of the screening process of qualified seminarians other than having male anatomy. The screening process is tougher for becoming a Policeman or a Marine Drill Instructor. No longer can we afford newly ordained priests who were urged to join the seminary because Mommy thought it would it would be a “neat idea” if Junior became a priest. We have had enough of these priests who are either gay, psychologically damaged or are unable to keep their pants on. These are the ones who have tainted our devoted priests unfairly. However, the church has done this to themself. Elder boards which Protestant churches have serve as model outlined in the early church. The Catholic church of the future should have laity of strong moral and professional character involved in the selection process. Clergy and nuns should not be the sole people running these unqualified men through as they currently are. Will they listen to the laity? I am not holding my breath.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 2:01 AM (EDT):

This (again,) is long, but please bear with me.
Some here have mentioned that they see celibacy as disparaging marriage, it isn’t!
1) Do you fast during lent? Why?
2) Do you see any “fruitfulness” from the Contemplatives that cloister themselves away from the world, and pray for us? Why?

It isn’t because food is BAD, and therefore we give up some during lent. Food is good! The same with the cloistered sisters. Being INthe world is not bad.
Giving up something GOOD for a HIGHER GOOD is what celibacy is about. Even more so, because it points us to heaven.
Christopher West has a pretty “synthesized down” explanation, that I will copy and paste here:History has seen some grave distortions of St. Paul’s teaching that he who marries does “well,” but he who refrains does “better” (1Co 7:38). It’s led some to view marriage as a “second class” vocation for those who can’t “handle” celibacy. It’s also solidified people’s erroneous suspicions that sex is inherently tainted, and only those who abstain can be truly “holy.”
Such errors led John Paul II to assert firmly: “The ‘superiority’ of continence to matrimony in the authentic Tradition of the Church never means disparagement of marriage or belittlement of its essential value. It does not mean any shift whatsoever in a Manichean direction” (TB, Apr 7, 1982). (Manicheanism is an ancient heresy that views bodily things as evil, placing all emphasis on spiritual realities.)
Celibacy is “better” or “higher” than marriage in the sense that heaven is better or higher than earth. Celibacy, unlike marriage, is not a sacrament of the heavenly marriage on earth. Celibacy is a sign of life beyond sacraments when we’ll be united with God directly through the “Marriage of the Lamb.”
In fact, I think it’s somewhat unfortunate that we define this vocation based on what it has “given up” rather than defining it in terms of what it has embraced. It seems a lot of confusion could be avoided if we described the celibate vocation as the “heavenly marriage,” for instance.
Of course, few who choose the celibate vocation would claim to experience “heaven on earth” every day of their lives. Celibates forego a great good, and that entails sacrifice. That entails a fruitful suffering “for the sake of the kingdom.”
Here it becomes clear that the Church does not hold the celibate vocation in such high regard because she believes sex is somehow tainted. She holds celibacy in such high regard precisely because she holds that which is sacrificed for the sake of God + genital sexual expression + in such high regard.
If sex were something unclean and unholy, offering it as a gift to God would be an act of sacrilege (we all know that there’s no merit in fasting from sin for Lent, right?). But, since sex is one of the most precious treasures God has given humanity, making a gift of it back to God is one of the most genuine expressions of thanksgiving (eucharistia) for such a great gift. The other is receiving it from God’s hands and living it as the expression of the marital covenant.
Everyone is called to a life of holiness by responding to the call to “nuptial love” stamped in his body. But not everyone is called in the same way. “Each has a particular gift from God, one of one kind and one of another” (1Co 7:7).
Each person should respond to the gift he’s been given. If one is called to celibacy, then he shouldn’t choose marriage. If one is called to marriage, then he shouldn’t choose celibacy. Hence the important need to discern one’s vocation prayerfully.
To read more, go to:http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=78

Also, when it comes to interpreting the Bible, you must be VERY careful. Two different sincere, well meaning people can read the same passage, and come up with different meanings, if they don’t have a good foundation. One of the easiest way to get a good foundation? Read your footnotes! “ What you think it means may not mean what you think!” Of course it goes without saying it should be an approved Catholic Bible.

Posted by unbent woman on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 1:22 AM (EDT):

focus people. Our Church is corrupt and needs help. What good is scripture when there is none of Christ’s justice here. Priests were married long ago…..to maintain the church, wives were disallowed. Now the church is in danger of more than earthly demise. Priests need to be allowed wives again because there is an abyss between our policies and normal. There is an abyss between Goodness and our policies. Husbands and fathers will narrow the gap. That is all that matters. I see love of God above. I hope the Church becomes worthy of God’s favor again. If it doesn’t…..I can see who will be brave enough to make it about Christ’s justice for all of our brothers and sisters. I also see those who will be too fearful for their very own souls to be Christlike. This is a piece that I wrote a while ago when the Vatican was battling allegations of a prostitution scandal. Or maybe it was the deaf survivors of Fr Murphy being condemned for bringing it up. All of the smoke and mirrors occlude the cross. This is not what I want to present to Christ when he comes back. It is time to say that with a collective voice; we are the Church.

Papel Pageant…....
A Chorus line of false paladins in white robes and urn shaped hats.
Their feet shuffle in unison
Mindless, Trapestine Lockstep
A fancy flash of posey-red Bruno Magli.
Condiscending choreography shames the lay critique
“Bow, Look Down!”
The commotion drowns out the mischief under the stage.
A technician trades the arc for flesh.
Above, the minstrals move in formation.
Flowing silk and gold streamers occlude busy transactions with secret settlements.
Left, Right,
Banners sway
A careless guilded staff strikes a stage light
The bare bulb swings like a pendulum
An accidental beacon illuminates the covert revue of heathen remuneration
The guilty cast duck for cover
An ancient remnant breaks free from the backdrop and drifts, unnoticed to the floor.

The exemplar retreats with his fraternal entourage to their judgement hall

A poor and forsaken advocate for the outcast ambles center stage and glances down Trembling, the steward reaches to grasp the trampled Sacred Heart
She rivets the discarded treasure to her breast and exits the arena.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 12:51 AM (EDT):

Twelve Oaks - You wrote, “It is no wonder that people don’t know their Bibles; many times the pastors don’t know their Bibles either.”

There is a movie coming out soon about a priest that is doing exorcisms in California, and I was able to get a question to him during a question and answer program.

I asked him, “How do you use Ephesians Chapter 6, and the Armour of the Holy Spirit, to prepare for exorcisms, and to assist the people that come to you for help?”

His answer left me thinking he had no idea what Ephesians Chapter 6 was. He said he “went to the Sacraments more, and prayed more” and he advised the people coming to him to do the same.

Frankly, I was most disappointed. The devil and fallen angels are real.
But the way these Vatican-trained exorcist priests are handling the situation does NOT jive with Scripture. There were so many red flags I saw in what they’re doing and it was only from being familiar with God’s Word.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 12:40 AM (EDT):

TheresaEE - I am most definitely not as equipped as you are with the roots for these words, and frankly, I think you are just much smarter than I am, if an IQ was done on us. No way can I compete with what you have written. I wouldn’t know where to begin.

So if I’m taking your words out of context, I do apologize. Most likely it’s because I’m just not at your intellectual level. I’m only a pew person that’s read the Bible, and what I read makes sense to me. I have no qualifications, no lay leadership or seminary training - no nothing.

I just love the Bible - God’s Word is consistent to me, from Genesis to Revelation. What’s not consistent to me are all the odd practices that result from verses, that to me seem so clear - so common sense clear, and yet, all these weird and different meanings are attached to them. And so much of it has to do with an adversion to women and an adversion to sex for priests.

If the Magesterium and even the Church Fathers, were 100% in agreement with each other for the last 2000 years, I’d say, “No problemo! Hey! Whatever they say would go for me!” But they mostly disagree. It’s not like the way Paul and Peter handled their dispute, at the Council of Jerusalem. And they’ve done things over the years that are, frankly, similar to what caused Jesus to overturn tables in the Temple, in His day.
Mostly, it is for money and for power - nothing of eternal value, or to teach and preach the Gospel.

Like indulgences and/or appointing their relatives to positions of power in the Church. The term “monsignor” is a fuedal term for “My Lord.” There are so many carry-overs from the Middle Ages, and us pew people just accept it, like children. They change things so often too- come Advent 2011, we’ll have another new liturgy, that to me, just sounds like Pre-Vatican II language. It’s silly, in my humble opinion. I call it “Liturgical Simon Says”.

What occupies most of the bishop’s time has nothing to do with matters of ETERNAL VALUE. How many bishops and priests are changing our culture, from the pulpit every Sunday? Not many.

What DOES have to do 100% with matters of eternal value are in the Bible, and it is unerring, and God’s Word. That is why I consider the Bible the Gold Standard of Measure for my faith life. It is so easy to understand. It is so comforting to know God from His Word - the most visible way He reveals Himself to us today.

If the Catholic Church wanted to really fill the pews, they need to get their noses in His Word, equipping seminarians and even seasoned priests, to teach and preach matters of eternal value - then, Catholics would have assurance, and a real relationship with the Holy Trinity.

Posted by TheresaEE on Tuesday, Jan, 11, 2011 12:13 AM (EDT):

@ Cradle Catholic: “....IF the Book of Tobit and Clement of Alexandria are correct & the apostles were married,....”

At the risk of finding my words twisted all out of rational sense again, I will attempt, once more, to respond.

The Book of Tobit never mentions the Apostles, so it’s bizarre that you suggest it does. And, in the passage I quoted, Clement of Alexandria does not claim the “apostles were married,” so it’s bizarre that you suggest he does. (I will say, though, that he does say, in other passages, that he believe that St. Paul was married, as well as St. Peter, but those are the only Apostles he believes were married).

So, your initial premise is faulty, and cannot support the “conclusions” you attempt to draw from that. Period.

YOU are the one who is claiming, without any Scriptural support to back up your claim, that all the Apostles were married. Once more, regarding 1 Cor. 9:5: St. Paul uses the terms ““adelfhn gynaika”, which you think means “wife.” They do not.

Ever hear of a gynecologist? Do you call him/her a “wife” doctor? I doubt it.

No one uses the term to mean “wife” doctor, or the study of “wife” health and reproduction. Why then, do you insist it means “wife” when St. Paul uses it?

Now, gynaika CAN be translated “wife”, but its PRIMARY meaning is “women.” If St. Paul wanted to say that he and the other Apostles had the right to take their “wives” on their journeys, then:

1. Why does he not use “sizigos” - which MEANS “wife”.

2. Why does he use gynaika, which means primarily “women”.

3. Why does he PRECEDE gynaika with adelphes, which means sister. Adelphes does NOT “Christian” or “Believing,” although it can mean either a blood sister, or a “sister in the faith.”

4. In sum, why does he say “sister women” (or, sister wife)?

When you BEGIN to answer the questions I have presented you with, regarding 1 Cor. 9:5, which you assert Catholic apologists are “afraid of” and “dance around” and try to turn attention to other verses, THEN, and ONLY then, I will continue to respond to you.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 11:20 PM (EDT):

The other thing I was thinking about today is IF the Book of Tobit and Clement of Alexandria are correct & the apostles were married, with sister woman’s, and they just prayed and fasted on their honeymoon, not consumating their marriages, that could be used today to make a case for same-sex marriage.

Hear me out on this - and PLEASE KNOW: I am 100% against same-sex marriage; I even worked long and hard to keep marriage between one man and one woman, taking some classes in how to talk with others to preserve its sanctity.

But with that said: points my fellow conservatives always drill home about the importance of not redefining marriage are that one man and one woman are - 1) open to children 2) the best environment for a child and a friend (Anglican pastor) suggested 3) the idea of marriage is for TWO to become ONE, and male female compliment each other, in every way.

But if “marriage” was already redefined during the time of the aposltes, where sex was out of the equasion, and today, what same sex couples say they need most is the “rights” associated with marriage (and no one can monitor what happens in the bedroom, between consenting adults) then why not allow same-sex marriage for anyone over the age of 21: even polygamy?

If the apostles “RE-DEFINED” marriage during their day, the modern day “Church” ought not have any say at all in trying to keep marriage between one man and one woman, because the 3 reasons I gave for doing so, are bogus, according to the way marriage was defined after Christ, and BY the apostles.

I just had this idea today - I’m not defending it. Frankly, I find the idea disgusting because all of American society would change, and it is clearly against Romans Chapter One. But think about it - please, your comments are appreciated. Thank you.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 11:06 PM (EDT):

The non-Catholic parishes I know of, that are so healthy, are careful to not get themselves into situations that give an appearance of their clergymen being attracted to another woman, or to allow another woman (not the minister’s wife) to become attracted to him. They have rules that are wise.

I wonder why it took 215 years after the first apostles for someone to come up with the idea that the women that tagged along on the apostles’ journies were called “wives” but were really sisters.

It says in Scripture that Jesus had brothers and sisters, but the Magesterium teaches us the “brothers” were really His cousins. Yet I believe John the Baptist may be referred to as Jesus’ “cousin”, and not His brother.

This makes me wonder—if Jesus’ sisters were really His “wives”, then the Da Vinci Code is correct after all - according to Clement of Alexandria, at least. I don’t believe for a minute that Jesus was “married” to anyone, not Mary Magdalene or anyone else. But according to the information handed down from the year 215, Dan Brown’s theory has merit. It wouldnt’ be Jesus’ wife - it would be his ‘sister woman’.

Posted by TheresaEE on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 9:17 PM (EDT):

@ New Observer: ” The seminaries have ill prepared these men to be careful not to allow themselves to be placed in a compromising position for their own good and that of a woman.”

Excellent point. It is ESPECIALLY true for priests, but Catholic moral theology has always cautioned ALL Catholics to avoid the “near occasions of sin” or even putting oneself in a position that would cause people of ill will to gossip.

This touches a bit on the discussion here regarding the interpretation of 1 Cor. 9:5 and Paul’s statement that the Apostles had a right to take “adelfhn gynaika” (i.e., “sister women”) with them when they were traveling about teaching and preaching.

Clement of Alexandria, (ca 215), wrote in his commentary (Stromata III) regarding 1 Cor. 9:5, that “the women were not treated as wives, but as sisters, to serve as interpreters with women whose duties kept them within their homes, and in order that, through these intermediaries, the doctrine of the Lord could penetrate the women’s quarters WITHOUT THE APOSTLES BEING BLAMED OR UNJUSTLY SUSPECTED BY PEOPLE OF ILL WILL.” (Emphasis mine).

There is nothing new under the sun. Even if one’s behavior is impeccable, there will always be those who wish to find some fault to gossip about, and this is especially true for priests today as it was for the Apostles in the first century.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 8:56 PM (EDT):

Posted by New Observer on Monday, Jan 10, 2011 5:08 PM (EST):” If priests were wiser, no priest would agree to counseling, discussions, meetings, lunches or dinners with women ALONE. There should always be more than two people in the room at the same time.”

Cradle Catholic responds:
I agree with you 100%. To “Unbent woman” - interviews of many priests show they get their knowledge of family life during our confessions, since they have no experience of their own.

Most people do not go to confession to rave about the beauty of their husbands, wives, and children. So priests see an almost exclusively sordid or messy side of family life and its problems, and on a regular basis. The priests view of family life is skewed towards the negative.

I do not believe only priests should be hearing confessions. Even in the old days, when the confessionals were exclusively anonymous, I know little boys whose priests would ask them about their sexual habits. While the boys thought it normal at the time, I think it inappropriate.
Though I look back, with the lens of an adult.

I think the constant talk of sex was bad for everyone. Instead, a priest should equip a FATHER to be a good role model to his son, having an open relationship that fosters communication. The parish priest can equip groups of women to be “Titus Two” women to younger women, most especially, for their own daughters.

When the practice of mandatory celiabcy ends, priests and their wives will serve as role models for their parishes; it will have a positive and healthy effect on the greater society. The Church will be seen as attractive, the clerical lifestyle will be respected by more people.

Women should be equipped to work with other females; men should be equipped to work with other males. Children should have same sex SAFE adults to go to. The existing condition of the “clerical” elite system is flawed, and so far, it has served to be counter-productive to a healthy church. It is not desirable, and it is not worthy of trust.

Right now, there are non-Catholic churches that have policies that New Observer describes. Men are never alone with a woman, not even a pastor. There are other, and more healthy, remedies in place to help each sex, and children.

Trained women counsel other females and men counsel other males - there are more pastors in these parishes: teaching pastors, youth pastors, and many “elders” that serve as deacons (a service-oriented role) to help out. Whole families get together, serving as good role models and they are approachable- even for the youth, and they reach out into the neighborhoods, that are not even Christian yet. It’s amazing. These people are living what is described in Acts of the Apostles.

Taking the verse about not muzzeling an ox to heart - the pastors are paid according to the impact they have on the Kingdom of God in their parishes. So being pastors is a full-time ministry for most of them.
It is a true vocation and it works.

Posted by New Observer on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 8:35 PM (EDT):

unbent woman —pervert and pedophile priests (and those who knew and transferred them around are complicit so they all belong in jail). Some women have designs on certain priests and enjoy using their WOW factor. The seminaries have ill prepared these men to be careful not to allow themselves to be placed in a compromising position for their own good and that of a woman. Confessionals (back when people actually did go to confession)—were in rooms separating the priest. Currently, confessions are held privately—but not behind closed doors. Any priest who continually meets with women privately is exercising extremely poor judgment in light everything you see in today’s news. Male school teachers also are told to not meet with schoolgirls with the doors closed.

Posted by unbent woman on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 8:19 PM (EDT):

ridiculous! how about the confessional. does a WOW woman have to bring a friend. And Fr Cutie has only one soulmate. God gave them each other. I, as a woman, would be perfectly comfortable with him…alone. I was violated by a PIG! A sinful liar touched me, he touched many young ladies. There is a huge difference. Mainly that you never read about the pervert priest. They just swept that under the rug. Cutie is the wayward son they want you to read about….it occupies the eye while they make back alley deals with damaged victims of the really gross stuff!

Posted by New Observer on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 8:08 PM (EDT):

If priests were wiser, no priest would agree to counseling, discussions, meetings, lunches or dinners with women ALONE. There should always be more than two people in the room at the same time. And then with some women, (not all)—their WOW factor is sometimes led to go after what they know is an untouchable. Fr. Cutie is a case in point.

Posted by TheresaEE on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 7:54 PM (EDT):

@Cradle Catholic: “1Corinthians 9: 5, “Do not Barnabas and I have the right to take along a wife, as do THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, and Peter?” Are you all saying that NO ONE IS KNOWN to have been married, among ALL THE APOSTLES?”

I’ve already given the actual Greek words, which show that Paul actually wrote: “Do not Barnabas and I have the right to take along a SISTER WOMAN, as do THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, and Peter?”

You have completely ignored the actual Greek, and don’t deal with the fact that 1 Cor. 9:5 does not “prove” what you “think” it “proves.” That’s your perogative to ignore what the actual Greek says, but it’s my perogative to end the conversation if you choose to continue to ignore my argument.

@Cradle Catholic: “Are you all saying that NO ONE IS KNOWN to have been married, among ALL THE APOSTLES?”

Absolutely no one has said this. This is classic straw man argumentation, used by those who haven’t got a cogent argument of their own. I choose not to dialogue with people who use these type of arguments, since it isn’t a dialogue at all, and I don’t choose to continue with people who twist my words and build staw men.

@Cradle Catholic: “So to everyone - I am shocked that you are saying that Roman Catholics approve of suicide! I thought we were called to be Pro-Life!”

Another straw man attempt to avoid the real argument. It failed.

@Cradle Catholic: “Why would He go to mostly married men, and then ASK them, ever so sweetly and kindly and compassionately, to BE DEAD BEAT DADS AND WIFE DESERTERS, for such a wonderfully Godly cause?”

Another straw man, only this one bordering on blasphemy.

End of discussion.

Posted by TheresaEE on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 7:42 PM (EDT):

@Kathy: “It is not the Church which deserves distrust. Just the opposite.”

Good point! This was my thinking as I read the email you received, which said that Fr. Cutie came to distrust the Church. Sounded like a classic case of “projection” to me. Cutie is the one whose actions were duplicitous, deceitful, and untrustworthy, so he projects his own untrustworthiness onto the Church, just as the man who is committing adultery accuses his innocent wife of committing adultery.

Great job writing to Fox!

Posted by unbent woman on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 7:42 PM (EDT):

In a church where the men make all of the rules, I find it interesting that’s a predatory female could be the one with the power over a priest’s decisions. I have a life-long friend who is a Catholic priest. It was a calling not initially heard, and he was following a path that had married life in view. I am relieved that our mutual attraction never crossed any lines. ( Although, there are enough freaks in the hierarchy, obsessed and titillated with our natural human desire; they would call my daydreams sinful. ) I am happily married. He is still a remarkable priest. I do however, believe that he would be even more remarkable with the stability of a spouse and family. It is historically “Catholic” and what God intended. I have weathered huge offense from the church….sexual molestation, lies, and judgement. I have hung in there because I still see this church as my home, something that needs reform. But if it does not start examining its own conscience, it will find itself in the same shape as the temple after Jesus raised Cain for the same abuses. Fr Cutie is right to love, right to share love, and right to show the way to a happy, meaningful, stewardship way of life. If the Catholics don’t want to see the right, they can sit alone, Judging in their bankrupt (in so many ways) castles. When the Way, the Truth and the Light, judges, covers up, and lies…..it is no longer. Jesus would NEVER condone this behavior. There is no human man’s condonation that trumps him. As a matter of fact, they have a commandment against it!

Posted by Betty Matczok on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 7:26 PM (EDT):

Why be so harsh with a priest falling in love with a woman-the church has protected pedaphiles for generations- allowing them from church-schools over & over again to continue their vile acts against the most vulnerable- our childern.

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 7:05 PM (EDT):

Pastor Brad made a final post and then indicated he would follow the example of the Fathers Stravinskas and George, exiting the discussion. I hope Pastor Brad takes a quick peek at the posts from time to time, even though he has indicated he won’t be participating.

In his final post, Pastor Brad state, “And to those who say that you don’t need seminary or a theologian to explain the original texts, that’s a backwoods Protestant view, not consistent with liberal Protestantism or Catholicism.”

Because that post appears to be in regard to comments I had made, I would like to make a clarification. I did not mean to suggest, “you don’t need seminary or a theologian to explain the original texts.” If my point was unclear, I apologize.

What wanted to convey was the idea that the translations we have in English, French, German and many other languages are very reliable and that there is a danger in giving people the idea that they if they do not know Greek, Hebrew or Aramaic, they cannot understand the Bible. The standard translations are examples of wonderful scholarship, and we do people a disservice when we say things that cause them to suspect that these translations are not correct.

Certainly, there are cases in which a translation does not fully capture all of the nuances of the original text. Most often, there is not a one-to-one correspondence between the semantic range of a word in one language and a word in another language. Therefore, translators must make choices that take the historical, grammatical, linguistic and cultural considerations into account.

When poetic language contains alliteration and other wordplay based on sound, translators often have no way to express it in the second language. Similarly, word order is not the same in all languages, and the emphatic placement of a word may be difficult to express.

There are other cases in which an alternate pointing of the Hebrew text gives rise to an alternate translation. Members on translation committees do not even agree in every instance on those choices, so there is some room for discussion even among translators.

There are many more instances that could be raised, but the bottom line is that we can rely on our translations to express the meaning of the Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts.

Is it impossible to understand Voltaire unless we read his works in French? Are we unable to understand Da Vinci’s notebooks because we read them in English rather than Italian? Does our inability to read Danish cause us to question whether the duckling is really ugly?

The great tragedy is that many seminaries do not require an in-depth study of entire the Bible anyway. In many seminaries a person can graduate without knowing much Greek or Hebrew and without having studied the Bible to any great degree.

For example, it is quite common for students to complete an 85-hour M.Div. without having to take any Greek or Hebrew. Further, they can get their degree by taking only 12 hours of Bible (two Old Testament courses and two New Testament courses). The other courses are in the areas such as preaching, worship, world religions, the social context of the church, etc. That is the reality in many Protestant seminaries today. It is no wonder that people don’t know their Bibles; many times the pastors don’t know their Bibles either.

There are thousands of pastors and missionaries around the world today who love the Lord and His Word and are using their abilities to teach and preach the truth as they equip believers to do the work of the ministry. Some have seminary training; others do not. Some have studied the original languages; others have not. I am in no way denigrating those ministries; I am merely commenting on the post concerning Bible translations, the role of the original languages and the importance of seminary education.

Seminary education is very valuable, and a person who has the opportunity should study the original languages and use them. At the same time, pastors should be careful not to convey the idea that the Bible is a book that is better left unopened by people who are not scholars.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 6:36 PM (EDT):

This statement was made in one of the posts “(Even the Book of Tobit makes this teaching clear, showing a couple spending their “honeymoon” in prayer and fasting,,”

These words are also in the Bible: “Judas went and hung himself.” and “Go and do likewise.” and “Be quick about it.”

So to everyone - I am shocked that you are saying that Roman Catholics approve of suicide! I thought we were called to be Pro-Life!

This statement is also in one of the posts above: “The only apostle who we know for certain was married was Peter, and his wife may have even been dead when Peter received his call…”

1Corinthians 9: 5, “Do not Barnabas and I have the right to take along a wife, as do THE REST OF THE APOSTLES, and Peter?” Are you all saying that NO ONE IS KNOWN to have been married, among ALL THE APOSTLES?

Lastly, this question to everyone: Why didn’t Jesus just choose ONLY single men for His aposltes? There were many, many of them around.

Why would He go to mostly married men, and then ASK them, ever so sweetly and kindly and compassionately, to BE DEAD BEAT DADS AND WIFE DESERTERS, for such a wonderfully Godly cause?

If I were the wife or the child of one of the apostles, according to YOUR rules, I’d throw tomatoes at Jesus from the bushes, every chance I got. How would YOU feel to be abandoned? That’s not “love”.

Good thing we serve a kind and loving God, and none of you that promote wife abandonment and dead beat dads are members of the Trinity.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 5:02 PM (EDT):

Fox News interviewed Fr. Cutie this am on Fox and Friends. IMHO this interview was very sympathetic to Cutie, portraying his as a victim.

I wrote an e-mail to Fox and Friends stating my opinion, and received the following back:

Hi Kathy,
Thanks for the note.
Fr. Cutie made it clear that he knew the rules, and wound up breaking them, and that’s why he left the church which he’d come to distrust.
His scandal played out in a large way across the country, so we wanted to hear his side, and that’s why we invited him on.
Thanks for writing, and watching.
Steve Doocy

I answered him back with:

Dear Steve,

Thank you for your reply.

Your statement “and that’s why he left the church which he’d come to distrust,” is exactly the line of thinking I am talking about.

Your interview “slanted” towards the Catholic Church is to blame, and poor Fr. Cutie is the victim.

No one forced him to become a Latin Rite Priest, and no one made him continue to minister as a Priest when he became involved with this woman.
It is not the Church which deserves distrust. Just the opposite.

Fr. Cutie “broke the rules;” it happens. We all sin, are forgiven, and move on. The difference here is Fr. Cutie broke the rules, and now wants a public platform to explain why he is right, and the Church is wrong.

You gave him that platform.

You did not mention any other options for Fr. Cutie that would have been honorable.

Do you have plans of airing an interview with a reputable Catholic Priest or theologian to give the “other side of the story?”

Thank You,
Kathy

To see the interview, go to:

www.foxnews.com/foxfriends/

on the right, you will see the “Video’s” heading. Fr. Cuties interview is the first video listed.

If anyone else would like to defend the Church by writing an e-mail, the address is:

I’m glad I was able to answer your question. I’m sorry my answer wasn’t simplistic like I think you wanted. You want quick answer based on a few simple texts in your translated Bible, yet it’s more complicated than that.

Everyone,

A.) Your current discussion on biblical passages ignores most if not all really accepted Biblical exegesis by anyone of consequence either Protestant or Catholic. Some of the resulting views are just plan weird and without real basis. And to those who say that you don’t need seminary or a theologian to explain the original texts, that’s a backwoods Protestant view, not consistent with liberal Protestantism or Catholicism. Why do you think both our traditions have seminaries and advanced post-seminary degrees in Biblical Studies and so on?

B.) While it’s fine to be loyal to one’s own faith tradition, some continue to display a misinformed, superior attitude towards we who are your Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ. Your understanding of what we believe is often wrong and based on prejudice, misinterpretation, and ignorance. I’m appalled.

C.) Many of you seem interested more in pushing and defending your own positions rather than developing real understanding.

It has been an experience here. I hope all of you reflect and pray about what I’ve written.

Now, like Fathers Stravinskas and George, I bid you adieu.

Pastor Brad

Posted by TheresaEE on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 2:28 AM (EDT):

@Kathy: “Just in case you didn’t take “an hour and a half” to read my above post to Cradle Catholic, I want to make sure you know that I appreciate your posts.”

I DID read your post, in fact, ALL of them, and found them so enjoyable I lost track of the time. Thank YOU for your witness!

I just got (as a Christmas gift), Scott Hahn’s book you mentioned in one of your posts: “Many are Called.” Am almost finished with it. It’s wonderful, as usual. I read his doctoral dissertation years ago, in electronic form, and it was amazing. Now, it’s finally been printed in book form, with some updates and revisions, called “Kinship by Covenant.” I feel so blessed to have it in that form, and highly recommend it. (Though, it’s not as easy to read as his other books, it is incredibly informative and thought-provoking).

Again, thank YOU for your wonderful witness!

Posted by priest's wife on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 2:07 AM (EDT):

As others have stated, celibacy is a discipline in the Latin-rite. Yes, it could change- but the man stays the way he is- so being ordained celibate means that you remain that way. The problem, of course, is that Cutie decided he was above these rules and has since gone to a church which has very few rules- I was baptized Episcopalian 33 years ago- and then became Catholic five years later- I remember one of the priests dating the church secretary- even at 7 years old, I thought it was weird. Not a lot of dignity in dating

Posted by TheresaEE on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 2:01 AM (EDT):

@New Observer: “These “wives” you hypothesize the apostles up and left,—they didn’t sign up for abandonment. They didn’t sign up for no sex for the remainder of their life.”

So good of you to be the self-appointed spokesman for the “wives” of the Apostles. (The only apostle who we know for certain was married was Peter, and his wife may have even been dead when Peter received his call, but we’ll leave these questions aside).

What they “signed up for” and what they may have later mutually agreed to, may be two different things. Since our Lord made it clear in Luke 18:29, as I earlier quoted, that the spiritual and even temporal rewards for the sacrifice of giving up earthly goods, including houses, wives and children, will far outweigh the temporal loss of those goods, then I think it is entirely conceivable that wives and husbands may mutually consent to what Christ “Solemnly” said.

Obviously, you don’t see acceeding to Christ’s solemn statement as entirely conceivable, even seeing this as “abandonment.”

In any case, Peter states, in that same context, that ” “We have left all we had to follow you!”
(Luke 18:28). This in no way implies that those who were “left” did not mutually consent to it, or that they would not still be cared for. If we are to believe Christ, then the temporal rewards would exceed the sacrifice, and we are to believe the NT, then we know those “left” were cared for either by their extended family, or by the Christian community.

@New Observer: “Since God does not break covenant you can be certain He does require men to break covenant as well. He does not call men (or women) to something—the breaking of a covenant—which is inconsistent with His own nature.”

Since Jesus is God, and Jesus asserts in a solemn way (When He says: “Truly I say to you”, He is essentially stating an oath) that those who leave homes, wives, children, etc., for the sake of the Kingdom of God will be greatly rewarded, then we can only conclude, from what you say, that:

1. Jesus isn’t God, since He is asking them to “break covenant” (according to you), and this is something God would never do.

2. Jesus solemn vow that those disciples who leave all their earthly goods for the sake of the Kingdom of God would be rewarded, is NOT a violation of their Covenant.

I opt for #2.

Posted by TheresaEE on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 1:09 AM (EDT):

@Cradle Catholic: ” All over the Bible, God has a healthy view of sex = He invented it.”

I think that’s part of the problem. You equate a reverence for virginity, chastity and continence, with a “denigration” of sex and marriage. One can do this only if one ignores how much God made clear that He loves virginity, chastity, and sexual continence too, which in no way “denigrates” sex and marriage.

Even St. Paul insists that “Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another * in that.” (1 Cor. 7:7).

The consensus of the Fathers was that Paul was either a widower, or never married, and Scripture makes clear that Paul was celibate. So, celibacy is a gift from God, and so is the vocation to marriage. Neither is denigrated.

@Cradle Catholic: “Only from men that have no clue what it is to live in a healthy family life, would the idea that people GOT MARRIED, and didn’t have sex, become a popular idea.”

Apparently then, you believe St. Paul had “no clue what it is to live in a healthy family life”?

St. Paul, in writing to the Corinthians, urged spouses to refrain from the marital embrace, for a period of time, and by MUTUAL agreement, for prayer and fasting. He clearly had the “idea” that people could get married and practice continence. (Even the Book of Tobit makes this teaching clear, showing a couple spending their “honeymoon” in prayer and fasting. What a radical idea, from 21st century American standards!).

“Do not deprive each other except perhaps by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.” (1Cor. 7:5).

Once again, the OT makes it clear that God demanded from the OT priests, periodic continence during their service in the Temple, and even from the people when approaching His holy mountain in Exodus. St. Paul, in the NT, teaches even to lay people, the efficacy of their prayers when they practice sexual continence during their prayer time.

And, once again, the NT priests’ service at the Altar is daily, and their prayers constant. Thus, the Fathers taught, as an Apostolic constitution, that the intercessory prayers of both ordained priests, and the priesthood of all believers, was more efficacious when done in the spirit of chastity and continence.

This is only scratching the surface of the spiritual dimensions of clerical continence which Kathy alluded to in an earlier post. The purely “secular” view your comments demonstrate make it clear that you have “no clue” about the spiritual dimensions of sexual continence, whether it is periodic, or perpetual.

Posted by New Observer on Monday, Jan, 10, 2011 12:27 AM (EDT):

TheresaEE: To dispute Cradle Catholic, you wrote: “In the culture in which Peter and the other Apostles lived, their wives and children would not have been left alone, or to fend for themselves. They did not live in ranch homes or bungaloes like today - they lived in the large, extended family, the “oikos”, or household.

Interesting opinion, Theresa. Here’s another. These “wives” you hypothesize the apostles up and left,—they didn’t sign up for abandonment. They didn’t sign up for no sex for the remainder of their life. Because of abandonment, were they then free to divorce and remarry? The covenant of marriage in Jewish culture was just that —a covenant made and pledged before God in the local synagogue. Since God does not break covenant you can be certain He does require men to break covenant as well. He does not call men (or women) to something—the breaking of a covenant—which is inconsistent with His own nature.

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 11:40 PM (EDT):

Once again, “Cradle Catholic” gives no argument other than his/her private interpretation of both Scripture, and his/her anacronistic interpretation of the cultural attitudes and mores of the 1st century.

Interestingly, those who actually lived and wrote during those times were not 21st century Americans. They revered virginity, chastity, and sexual continence, following Christ’s own example. Christ Himself said that no one who has left father, mother, WIFE, Children, brother and sister, for the sake of the Kingdom of God, will be given payment many times over, both in this life, and the world to come. (Mt. 19:12; Lk 18:29; 14:26).

Peter asserts that “We left all we had to follow you.” (Luke 18: 28-30). In the culture in which Peter and the other Apostles lived, their wives and children would not have been left alone, or to fend for themselves. They did not live in ranch homes or bungaloes like today - they lived in the large, extended family, the “oikos”, or household.

So, it doesn’t appear that the Apostles, following Christ, had the 21st century “scruples” of “Cradle Catholic.”

In addition, since the NT priesthood was the fulfillment of and perfection of the OT priesthood, then the periodic continence practiced by the Levitical priests during their annual Temple service was very naturally extended to a perpetual continence by the NT priests since their service was daily.

God also makes it clear in the OT that those who serve at the Temple must be purified before entering that temple. Even the people had to be purified before they could approach God’s holy mountain in Exodus. Refraining from sexual relations was part of that purification. And, naturally, since the OT Levitical priesthood was drawn from one Tribe, they HAD to have spousal relations to ensure the propogation of the Tribe.

Since the NT priesthood is NOT drawn from one Tribe, again, there is no priestly “duty” to marry or have spousal relations in order to propogate the priestly pool.

Private, 21st century “opinions” don’t matter. What matters is what the Apostles actually taught, did, and what they passed on to their successors. That is what must be examined, and that is what IS being examined, by numerous scholars, using the latest historical critical methods. The evidence at this point is clear that the Early Church taught, and believed, that the Apostles handed down to them the practice of clerical continence.

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 10:50 PM (EDT):

Let me give you my own somewhat “anonymous but personal” experience with Edgar Davie. AFTER I bought the book “Celibacy in the Early Church” by Stefan Heid, I decided to check out the reviews of the book on the Amazon site.

There was one by a reviewer named Roger D. Throme, who claimed, in his review, that: “In 1 Cor. 9:5, Heid changes Paul’s words: “Do we not have the right to take about with us a wife,” to read “Do we not have the right to take about with us a sister.” Throme makes another “claim” which completely misrepresents what Heid actually writes.

In the same review section, is one entitled “Seeking Throme” - the author of which is Ed Davie. Davie writes: “I would like to contact Throme regarding his review of this book. Would you be allowed to forward this request on to him” - and then Davie gives his contact address.

One, Heid does no such thing. On page 30, his first mention of 1 Cor. 9:5, Heid gives BOTH versions of the Greek text which have been handed down, both interpretations of the Greek text, and states: “We leave open the decision as to which is the original text, and take all possibilities into account in our further discussion.” Yet Davie seems to uncritically accept Throme’s claim.

Two, Davie goes to some length to contact Throme personally, it seems, rather than obtain Heid’s book himself, to check the veracity of Throme’s claim.

I just find it curious that a “scholar” would need to discuss a book with an Amazon reviewer. All one has to do is check what Heid actually said against what Throme claimed.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 10:27 PM (EDT):

To TheresaEE- It does not make sense that the apostles, or Paul, would take along women to do chores for them. Were they hanging around only to do laundry? Perhaps they were kept on-hand for the inevitable priestly “Lapses” that’s so common today - using the women for sex?

I think not. It goes beyond the pale to think that. Only from men that have no clue what it is to live in a healthy family life, would the idea that people GOT MARRIED, and didn’t have sex, become a popular idea. It’s just silly - the PURPOSE of marriage is to have oneness, and part of that oneness comes from sex.

Why didn’t they just take along their biological sisters? Why get married. Only folks that would drink the Kool-Aid would buy this drivel and call it “wise”. It is not from God. All over the Bible, God has a healthy view of sex = He invented it.

And most importantly, mandatory celibacy HAS NOT WORKED. It has never worked, history proves that. It’s not working now. How many dioceses must declare bankruptcy, before pew people will say, “Enough. This must be addressed.”

Father Robert George - thanks for your posts to this item, and thank you for your service for the Kingdom.

Posted by Father Robert George on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 10:07 PM (EDT):

@ Everyone:

Thank you, Jimmy, for allowing me to comment here and thank you all for the interesting discussion. I usually do not post so much and I’ve discovered that such online discussions can be time consuming and addictive—just like the old Catholic Information Network in the pre-Internet days out of Heartford, CT and then Ecunet.

I’ve enjoyed most of the discourse here, although I find the “proof texting” here somewhat dishonest while disregarding the context and actual language of the ancient texts and certainly something I’m more accustomed to seeing from Fundamentalist Protestants than in our Catholic community.

What our apparent lone Protestant visitor, Pastor Brad, had to say about inaccuracies in the English translations is true. Some of my professors, friends, and/or colleagues worked on those translations and, for the most part, they are accurate except in certain areas because of how the translators choose to address particular words in the Greek to words in English when there is not English equivalent.

In addition, I do not have time to discuss the flaws in some of the “scholarship” mentioned here and if I did it would not change any minds,

I also find the attitude regarding our brothers and sisters in other Christian faith communities disconcerting and contrary to the spirit and actual work of the past and current ecumenical dialogs currently sponsored and endorsed by either the Vatican and/or The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops. In the real “offline” world, I’ve been involved in ecumenical dialog and I’ve taught at non-Catholic universities and seminary while teaching also in Catholic institutions. I have a much more ecumenical attitude than it seems many do here and I firmly respect and love my colleague preachers in those Protestant traditions and see their ministries as valid.

On the other hand, I find the commitment to our Church refreshing in a day when many no longer care about religion.

Thank you again.

I wish you all well and the peace of Christ, which passes all understanding.

With this I sign off from this discussion as pastoral duties call.

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 9:35 PM (EDT):

@ “Cradle Catholic”: ” I know someone that thinks like you. She too mentioned Cardinal Stickler’s book, The Case for Clerical Celibacy to me. I took great effort to obtain a copy of that book, and to read it, from cover to cover - making notes and handing her a copy of my problems with what was stated, showing how much of what he wrote did not jive with what I knew was in Scripture and in universal Church Tradition.
This woman took my 4 page list of questions and thoughts. She NEVER spoke with me again about it - completely ignoring me, from that day on.

I know someone who thinks like YOU! Over at Amazon.com, a women named Alexandra Roberts, who started a thread about “much needed reform” in the Catholic Church, recommended Edgar Davies’ book “Illicit Celibacy”. Another poster took a great deal of time responding to Ed Davies’ book, point by point just from the sections of the book which Amazon allows people to read for free. From what I remember, there were so many problems with Davies’ scholarship just in those sections that the poster felt there was no reason to buy the book and read any further. The book was not “scholarly” as the poster noted. It was nothing more than a polemic, making claims which were unsupported by documentation from history, Scripture, the Fathers, Councils, Popes, etc., - starting with the claim that priestly celibacy became mandatory “only” in the 12th century.

Ms. Roberts never addressed those points which the poster presented. Rather, she complained that the poster didn’t read the “whole” book, and then when pressed to at least respond to the misrepresentations and mistakes already pointed out, asked Ed Daviies himself to do her work for her. To my recollection, Mr. Davies never answered the other poster’s points either, and the poster then had to spend a great deal of time responding to Ed Davies’ non-response.

It’s no shocker that “NO THEOLOGIAN will answer the questions Davie points out.” No theologian is going to respond directly to Davie, since his book is not a scholarly work. But, the “questions” he brings up have been answered, numerous times, by theologians using the latest historical critical methods. Davie simply refused to engage those essays, books, and articles. It’s like “two ships passing in the night.”

You can actually read some of that Amazon discussion here, to get an idea of Davies’ inability to respond to questions HIS book raises (Go a few pages back for Davies’ actual response):

So, we both know someone who “thinks like someone else.” But, that doesn’t change the fact that you have not responded to my post.

I read through your old posts, and you kept bringing up 1 Cor. 9:5, claiming that Catholiic apologists don’t like that verse, they can’t answer it, yada yada yada. I showed, from the original Greek, that that verse in no way argues against the Catholic position. You haven’t responded, other than to give your personal opinion: “The idea of the apostles being “continent” and getting “permission from their wives” is absurd.”

Over and against your personal opinion, I submit the commentaries of 1 Cor. 9:5, by Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, St. Jerome, Isador, that those “sister women” were not wives in the conjugal sense.

I submit that, according to Cochini, “the majority of contemporary exegetes have accepted, especially for LINGUISTIC reasons, the last hypothesis” - that hypothesis being that the sister women in 1 Cor. 9:5 were “believing women who accompanied the Apostles to take care of their material needs, like the holy women who followed our Lord in Palestine (Luke 8:2-3). (Emphasis mine, Cochini p. 79).

I submit that the Fathers were unanimous in declaring that those married men gave up their conjugal lives after ordination.

If that seems “absurd” to you, then I suggest you ask Kathy to expound on the supernatural dimension of the priesthood, which explains the true nature of the priesthood and its connection with continence.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 7:51 PM (EDT):

Kathy16617 wrote, “I believe your first reference to Paul was a typo, and you meant to say Peter..”

No - I meant Paul. Paul was a Pharisee, and he called himself a Pharisee among Pharisee’s! He learned under Gamalian (spelling may be incorrect), and there were certain requirements of Pharisees. In the Jewish culture, a male wasn’t even considered a MAN unless he was married. So one can surmise that earlier in his life, Paul was married. It’s unknown what happened to his wife - it’s not important.

What IS of utmost importance is he said he and Barnabas had a RIGHT to marry. Why in the world would one want to marry a woman and treat her like his sister? That’s just silly. It is not of God. Has everyone read the Song of Solomon in the Bible? That’s married love, and yet, somehow, the Church claims it’s about Jesus and us, His Bride. Unreal.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 7:45 PM (EDT):

TheresaEE posted on Sunday, Jan 9, 2011 12:42 AM (EST) “..even during Apostolic times, while candidates for the higher orders could be married, they had to, with their wives’ permission, renounce the “privileges” that married conferred PRIOR to ordination. In other words, they had to practice clerical “continency” once ordained.”

Cradle Catholic’s response: I know someone that thinks like you. She too mentioned Cardinal Stickler’s book, The Case for Clerical Celibacy to me. I took great effort to obtain a copy of that book, and to read it, from cover to cover - making notes and handing her a copy of my problems with what was stated, showing how much of what he wrote did not jive with what I knew was in Scripture and in universal Church Tradition.
This woman took my 4 page list of questions and thoughts. She NEVER spoke with me again about it - completely ignoring me, from that day on.

The idea of the apostles being “continent” and getting “permission from their wives” is absurd. It sounds to me like a Gnostic belief that the flesh is bad, and the spirit is good. It is NOT from God - if it were from God, that practice would be all over the New Testament. It is not.

I believe the book “Illicit Celibacy and the Deposit of Faith” has questions that must be answered. To date, NO THEOLOGIAN will answer the questions Davie points out. Just like the lady I know completely ignored questions/concerns I had about Cardinal Stickler’s book.

I do believe Davie has valid questions. IF the Holy Spirit were guiding the men in the Vatican, our church would be in better shape today - we would be INCREASING in numbers in the developed world, with educated populace, and not only gaining in numbers in Third World countries with an uneducated populace that needs material help. God wants us to love Him (and understand our faith) with our minds - not just be sponges, accepting anything that comes down the pike from people that call themselves “speaking for God”.

My mother used to do that. I’d say why and she’d say, “Because I said so. I’m the mother.” End of discussion. It ought not be like that, in the Church. It was never like that with Peter and Paul, and the other apostles. We need to question- we must be like the Bereans and Paul.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 6:34 PM (EDT):

@TheresaEE

Just in case you didn’t take “an hour and a half” to read my above post to Cradle Catholic, I want to make sure you know that I appreciate your posts.

Your point of clerical continency after ordination is very similar to what Scott Hahn explains in Many Are Called, although you went into much more detail than I had access to. Thank you!

Posted by Kathy16670 on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 6:02 PM (EDT):

To Cradle Catholic,
I know you to be sincere in your faith, and so that is why I am puzzled over why you would follow someone like Edgar Davie?
“IF” Davie is correct, then all the Pope’s from Gregory VII (or even Siricius for the strictest example) on down to Pope Benedict the XVI have been wrong. Is it reasonable to think that the Holy Spirit would guide Davie to see the truth, but skip over the Popes, AND all the celibate saints? If priestly celibacy was “illicit,” I cannot image for a moment that Padre Pio would say “well, it’s wrong, but I’ll just do it anyway.”
For clarification, I would like to “fine tune” my position a bit. To the person who says,” celibacy was needed in past history for various reasons, but I think the time is drawing to an end, and I think in his wisdom Pope Benedict will lift this disciple in the near future,”…I have no problem with you. (To myself I may think “don’t hold your breath,” but I don’t see that as disobedient to the Magisterium.)
To those that say (as Davie does,) that the Catholic Church “got it wrong” all this time; I have a big problem with that line of thinking.
On to your points:
1) Celibacy was not recommended by the *universal* Church for leaders in the early days.

Recommended or required? several scripture verses (since that is all you will accept – not early Church Fathers,) recommend celibacy. Some of them are listed in my comment dated Jan. 5th.
A quote from the Catholic Answers library (no author was identified…)

The truth is, it is precisely those who are uniquely “concerned about the affairs of the Lord” (1 Cor. 7:32), those to whom it has been given to “renounce marriage for the sake of the kingdom” (Matt. 19:12), who are ideally suited to follow in the footsteps of those who have “left everything” to follow Christ (cf. Matt. 19:27)—the calling of the clergy and consecrated religious (i.e., monks and nuns).

Thus Paul warned Timothy, a young bishop, that those called to be “soldiers” of Christ must avoid “civilian pursuits”: “Share in suffering as a good soldier of Christ Jesus. No soldier on service gets entangled in civilian pursuits, since his aim is to satisfy the one who enlisted him” (2 Tim. 2:3–4). In light of Paul’s remarks in 1 Corinthians 7 about the advantages of celibacy, marriage and family clearly stand out in connection with these “civilian pursuits.”

An example of ministerial celibacy can also be seen in the Old Testament. The prophet Jeremiah, as part of his prophetic ministry, was forbidden to take a wife: “The word of the Lord came to me: ‘You shall not take a wife, nor shall you have sons or daughters in this place’” (Jer. 16:1–2). Of course, this is different from Catholic priestly celibacy, which is not divinely ordained; yet the divine precedent still supports the legitimacy of the human institution.
http://www.catholic.com/library/Celibacy_and_the_Priesthood.asp

Also, from Scott Hahn’s book Many are Called: Rediscovering the Glory of the Priesthood, Pg 119In the Old Covenant, the priests observed celibacy during their rotating terms of
service.”

2) You stated It is because it does *not* apply to the ordained ministry. If you, or me, or anyone on this blog *chose* to not marry, in order to serve the Kingdom of God, then it would apply to them.

So you believe that celibacy is recommended for everyone EXCEPT
Consecrated religious? Why would they be excluded? Please read
again (above) the quote from Catholic Answers re: Paul’s warning to
Timothy about getting entangled with civilian pursuits (2 Tim 2:3-4)
And how it ties in with 1 Cor 7.

You then stated “Paul would have had to be married at some point in his earlier life, because he was a “Pharisee”, and it is common knowledge that in order to be a card-carrying Pharisee, certain behaviors were met: one was marriage. It was just expected of men. Paul was single, during his ministry, however, and his marital status is unknown in his later life, prior to his death. Some sources say he may have married - it’s not important. Most important is he had a *right* to marry a believing woman, like the other apostles.”

I believe your first reference to Paul was a typo, and you meant to say
Peter. Yes, we know Peter was indeed married, because Jesus cured his
mother in law. Also, Paul in 1 Cor. 9:5 is stating that Peter had a
right to travel with his wife.

This is not a scandal, since we know that celibacy was not required
(but only recommended) at that time.

This post is getting VERY long, so I’ll just address one more of your points. You asked “Why does the Vatican call it a “Practice” that COULD be changed tomorrow, and not a *rule* that can never be changed,?

Looking from this time and place, backwards through history we see how
Priestly celibacy changed history. The Huns of Mongolia could never
have been converted by any other means. The lowest casts of society
in India would never have been allowed access to the church if it were
not for celibate priests. (I’d be happy to discuss this more if you
are interested.)

Has the need for celibate Priests come and gone? That’s a whole new
discussion. But if the question is “was it illicit from the
beginning?” NO!

We have not even discussed the Supernatural Dimension to all this, which I feel is the most compelling.

Also, I hope you will read and ponder ThereaseEE’s comments. They are excellent!

A quote from Christopher West:In a world that has lost sight of heaven, those who are “eunuchs for the kingdom” shine as a bright witness to us all of the ultimate destiny of human life. They witness to what Saint Augustine said so well: “You have made us for yourself, oh God, and our hearts are restless until we rest in you.”
http://www.christopherwest.com/page.asp?ContentID=78

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 4:41 AM (EDT):

RE: 1 Cor. 9:5 “Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?”

There is a great deal of argument regarding the correct translation of the Greek terms “adelfhn gunaika” which are above translated “Christian wife.”

In fact, the first term “adelfhn” is properly translated “sister” - either a flesh and blood sister, or one connected by religious ties. The second term, “gunaika” can be translated either as “wife” or primarily as “woman.”

Since we know that in the Early Church, married men who practiced continence after ordination referred to their wives as “sister,” then “sister wife” or “sister woman” in 1 Cor. 9:5 is no argument at all that Paul is here taling about the Apostles being accompanied by wives at all, let alone having marital relations with those wives.

He could simply be referring to the believing women (sister women) who accompained them just as some women believers accompanied Christ (Luke 8:1-3). Or, they could be wives who were now “sister wives” to those who were ordained priests and bishops.

There simply is no way to “prove” from 1 Cor. 9:5 - as some attempt to do - that the Catholic Church’s discipline of clerical celibacy is “un-Scriptural.”

Posted by TheresaEE on Sunday, Jan, 9, 2011 3:42 AM (EDT):

@Kathy16670: “let’s look at 1 Tim 3:1-5. It states that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. The argument here would seem to be that an unmarriedman would not be fit as a bishop.(?)”

Recent scholarship by such men as Cardinal Stickler, (“The Case for Clerical Celibacy”), Stefan Heid (“Celibacy in the Early Church”), Christian Cochini (“The Apostolic Origins of Priestly Celibacy”), and others, argue convincingly (IMHO), that even during Apostolic times, while candidates for the higher orders could be married, they had to, with their wives’ permission, renounce the “privileges” that married conferred PRIOR to ordination. In other words, they had to practice clerical “continency” once ordained.

With that in mind, the interpretation of 1 Tim. 3:1-5 means, that, while candidates could be married prior to ordination, since they had to practice continency after ordination, then men who were married more than once (such as, a widower who re-marries), obviously show themselves as unable to practice continency, and would therefore not make a good candidate for ordination.

So, the “husband of one wife” means that he cannot be a widower who has remarried, because that shows he will be unable to practice clerical continency.

I would highly recommend any one of those books for anyone truly interested in the practice of clerical continency even in Apostolic times.

Posted by IEF on Saturday, Jan, 8, 2011 10:40 PM (EDT):

Dear Brother Mark:
It’s really sad to hear you speak that way, even more if you’re thinking on becoming a Priest later on.
I have no right, and maybe no knowledge to give you any sermon here, but I do feel the obligation, as a lay catholic, to tell you that what we, what the church needs now are witnesses of the Truth, and the truth can only be found in Jesus Christ, in His word and in the Teachings of His true and only Church. You must know better than I do, that appart from believing in the Scriptures, we also believe in the Church’s tradition, which has been made known to us by the inspirations of the Holy Spirit, therefore, to live according to the Church’s tradition is not only about fulfilling a “duty” but rather to be living according to God’s will.
It is very sad indeed to know about some priests and religious that do not live according to their vocation. But it is also refreshing to know that there are many others (much more than the later) that DO live according to their priestly vocation, and that do not only “live according their vocation” but that are really in love with it, and that are willing to embrace all it takes in order to love Christ! (I’m not saying they’re some sort of immaculate priests or anything, they are human beings, so just like us, they have their falls and everything, but like us (some of us) they stand up, repent and mend those sins and keep fighting at Christ’s side)
I really encourage you to renew that promise you’ve made God to follow Him, and to see if it really is your vocation to be a Priest for Christ. and if it is, I encourage you to embrace your vocation, the most beautiful I must say, and live according not to your personal interpretations of what you “can and can’t do” but according to what God is asking of you at every moment of your life (be it chastity, fidelity, obedience, prudence…) But please, as a lay woman and a catholic I beg you, if you are to become a Priest, become a Holy one! if not, thank you so much but we don’t really need more scandals in our church today. Sorry if I’m being mean, I do not mean it. but I really want you to realize the importance of your example (good or bad) and the impact it has (again good or bad/terrible) in our society.
If you are to be a priest, be a priest for Christ, and go with Him up to Calvary, embracing His cross out of love for Him, but always keeping in mind that the reason for this cross is no other than to be united with Him for all eternity!

“Blessed are the pure of heart, for they shall see God.” Mt 5:8
“You are the ones who have been faithful to me in my trials” Lk 22:28

In Christ,
I. E. F.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Saturday, Jan, 8, 2011 8:09 PM (EDT):

Kathy16617, you wrote: “Let’s start at the beginning. We know that celibacy was not required, but instead recommended for the earliest leaders of the church.”......Also you asked, “On Jan. 5th I asked for your interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:32-35, and 5 other passages that support celibacy. You did not attempt to explain anything, but only responded with questions of your own..”
*****************************************************

Cradle Catholic’s response:

1) Celibacy was not recommended by the *universal* Church for leaders in the early days. Every time it was brought up by a few people, it was voted down by the majority. This is why it took until the year 1139, when there were so many corruptions in the church - with priests leaving property to children - they just said “no marriage”. This ripped apart the marriages of priests in those days, putting wives and children on the street, even into prostitution. The pope in that day, Leo, if memory serves, dumped his wife & family, in a heartbeat, to take the papal seat.

2) Regarding my not saying much about the passage from 1st Corinthians, it is because it does *not* apply to the ordained ministry. If you, or me, or anyone on this blog *chose* to not marry, in order to serve the Kingdom of God, then it would apply to them. It is addressed to lay people. As for ordained ministry, there *are* verses that specifically show us the ideal qualifications - I copied them above. All of them.

With that said, it’s not that any single man would be *prevented* from being an ordained minister. Timothy was single, as far as I know. Paul would have had to be married at some point in his earlier life, because he was a “Pharisee”, and it is common knowledge that in order to be a card-carrying Pharisee, certain behaviors were met: one was marriage.
It was just expected of men. Paul was single, during his ministry, however, and his marital status is unknown in his later life, prior to his death. Some sources say he may have married - it’s not important. Most important is he had a *right* to marry a believing woman, like the other apostles.

Marriage was always an expectation. This is why, when some Church Fathers converted from paganism and Gnosticism to Christianity, they took their pagan beliefs with them, and tried to mesh it into the Christian faith. One is celibacy. The idea that things of the flesh are substandard to things of the spirit.

If celibacy were to be a valued gift and a treasured rule, why did it take until the year 1139, and generations of bishops and popes, to make it mandatory? How come it wasn’t like that, from the get-go? Why does the Vatican call it a “Practice” that COULD be changed tomorrow, and not a *rule* that can never be changed, like they do with the proposal of the ordination of women?

Pastor Brad- thank you for the links re: women priests. But as I may have written earlier, I just do not see anything in the Bible or in *universal* Church Tradition to support women priests.

There is a book written by layman Edgar Davie in 2009 (I think) that’s called “Illicit Celibacy and The Deposit of Faith”. It gives a very detailed history of celibacy - and what I found most interesting was the “Deposit of Faith” - something I’d never even heard of before. Go to www.illicitcelibacy.com for information.

Posted by Twelve Oaks on Saturday, Jan, 8, 2011 7:13 PM (EDT):

Pastor Brad,

Thanks for your several posts and comments. It is important to note that the English translations of the Bible are accurate, very reliable and more than able to communicate the truths of the original texts. In most cases, the difference between reading the original languages as opposed to English is like the difference between watching a movie in color rather than black and white.

A person does not need to have a theological degree to read and understand the Bible. It was written for the common person. If people are taking verses out of context, or if a particular English word or syntax may not seem to capture a nuance or figure of the original language, we would do well to explain the precise issue rather than suggest that the Word of God is out of reach for the common person. At that point, people shut the book and leave rest to the “experts.” Had Wesley taken that approach there wouldn’t be a UMC.

Your denomination makes many sprurious arguments about why married priests wouldn’t work. I’ve seen people argue that your priests do so much more than we (lazy) Protestant pastors and I’ve challenged that on this or another thread. Depending on congregation size, many of us are just as busy as your priests, sometimes more so, and we don’t have personal housekeepers like many Catholic priests do.

We manage to “give God our all”. Our wives or husbands (for women clergy) are wonderful helpmates who often have their own, valid ministry roles within the congregation. Most of us do not shirk our responsibilites as spouse and parent just because we also provide for the spiritual needs of our flock.

I am able to devote more time to my flock because my spouse is there to help and support. I am able to help married couples with problems with more credibility because I live in marriage. It’s not just book learning and doctrine.

Married clergy, I think, is a good thing that leads to more stability.

I saw that someone posted on this thread or another that the incidents of abuse in Protestant churches is just as high, but the media “picks” on Catholics. That’s false. We do have our problem clergy too or staff who commit adultary. We have an occassional child molester, but even taking into account the size of our denominations compared to Catholicism, the numbers are tiny. I think you’d find that if your denomination allowed married priests, many of the scandals would virtually go away.

As you continue your discussion, you might want to check out a [“url=http://www.whwomenclergy.org/articles/article5.php”]short article[/url] by David L. Thompson,professor of biblical studies, Asbury Theological Seminary, Wilmore, Ky., about ordination of women, article from 1939 and perhaps this article.

I suggest these because they’re easy to find online. They’re written by scholars from various conservative Protestant traditions.

It’s extremely important that translators often used the same word for what it Greek is different types of ministry or, inconstantly, they used different words in English for what is the same in Greek. This is very important, instead of just “proof-texting” texts from the English. I know Father George explained this in another comment.

As the Bible says, “Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved by him, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly explaining the word of truth.” (2 Tim. 2:15) or as The KJV translates it traditionally, “Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.”

Pastor Brad

Posted by Kathy16670 on Saturday, Jan, 8, 2011 4:45 AM (EDT):

Cradle Catholic,

On Jan. 5th I asked for your interpretation of 1 Cor. 7:32-35, and 5 other passages that support celibacy.

You did not attempt to explain anything, but only responded with questions of your own (using a lot of CAPS.)

I would like to have a civil conversation with you, and will attempt again.
Let’s start with 1 Tim 3:1-5 that you brought up. I will give you the interpretation of the Catholic Apologists that I believe have it right. (Now, as a disclaimer, if the conversation turns “snarky” again, as it did on the 6th, then I won’t spend my time trying to converse.)
Let’s start at the beginning. We know that celibacy was not required, but instead recommended for the earliest leaders of the church. It was probably sometime in the first century that mandatory celibacy for some types of pastoral leadership was required. With that said, let’s look at 1 Tim 3:1-5.
It states that a bishop should be the husband of one wife. The argument here would seem to be that an unmarriedman would not be fit as a bishop.(?) This is an inaccurate reading of the passage of Scripture – if “the husband of one wife” meant that a bishop had to be married then the phrase “keeping his children submissive and respectful” would have meant he needed to have sons or daughters. Husbands without children, or even those with just a single child, since Paul uses the plural, could not be bishops. Also, as Paul speaks of bishops meeting these requirements rather than having previously met them, or candidates for bishops meet them, it would mean that a bishop who was windowed or whose children died would immediately have to resign his office. (Clearly this is not what Paul was saying.)
The correct reading of this passage of scripture is that a bishop should be someone of high moral character. Paul is saying a bishop must be stable, and gracious, and have moderation in habits and temperament.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 7:18 PM (EDT):

Bottom line, I believe:

1) The Bible is the error-free, Holy Spirit-inspired Word of God. I believe what Paul wrote in his Second Letter to Timothy:

“But you, remain faithful to what you have learned and believed, because you know from whom you learned it, that from infancy you have known (the) sacred scriptures, which are capable of giving you wisdom for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. All scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for refutation, for correction, and for training in righteousness, so that one who belongs to God may be competent, equipped for every good work.”
2 Tim. 3:14-17

2) When Paul wrote his “Pastoral Letters” to Timothy and Titus, “pastoral” meant it related to shepherds: “pastors”, and to the duties of a pastor. When Jesus appointed Peter to his special church position, he asked him, “Do you love me?” and then He said, “Feed my sheep” and “Care for my sheep.”

3) I believe the Vatican has ignored Bible wisdom and qualifications for those in ordained ministry. As proof, I offer quotes pertaining specifically to those in ordained ministry: 1Tim. 3:1-5, Titus 1 & Paul’s right to marry 1Cor. 9:5.

1 Timothy
Chapter 3
1
1 This saying is trustworthy: 2 whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task.
2
Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, temperate, self-controlled, decent, hospitable, able to teach,
3
not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money.
4
He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;
5
for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

Titus
Chapter 1
1
1 Paul, a slave of God and apostle of Jesus Christ for the sake of the faith of God’s chosen ones and the recognition of religious truth,
2
in the hope of eternal life that God, who does not lie, promised before time began,
3
who indeed at the proper time revealed his word in the proclamation with which I was entrusted by the command of God our savior,
4
to Titus, my true child in our common faith: grace and peace from God the Father and Christ Jesus our savior.
5
2 For this reason I left you in Crete so that you might set right what remains to be done and appoint presbyters in every town, as I directed you,
6
on condition that a man be blameless, married only once, with believing children who are not accused of licentiousness or rebellious.
7
For a bishop as God’s steward must be blameless, not arrogant, not irritable, not a drunkard, not aggressive, not greedy for sordid gain,
8
but hospitable, a lover of goodness, temperate, just, holy, and self-controlled,
9
holding fast to the true message as taught so that he will be able both to exhort with sound doctrine and to refute opponents.

1 Corinthians
Chapter 9
1
1 Am I not free? Am I not an apostle? Have I not seen Jesus our Lord? Are you not my work in the Lord?
2
Although I may not be an apostle for others, certainly I am for you, for you are the seal of my apostleship in the Lord.
3
My defense against those who would pass judgment on me 2 is this.
4
3 Do we not have the right to eat and drink?
5
Do we not have the right to take along a Christian wife, as do the rest of the apostles, and the brothers of the Lord, and Cephas?

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 4:43 PM (EDT):

@ New Observer,

You’re welcome. Posting on this board has been an eye opener for me. I sometimes forget that there is a gap between we clerics and many in the laity and that this effects SO much from Biblical understanding to interpretation (or misinterpretation) of doctrine or confusion between “church traditions” that are not sacred but are of human origin versus those essential Sacred Traditions. People after Mass may take a moment to thank me (or any priest) for a good sermon or to comment about what they didn’t like, but only a few are as vocal as people have been here.

I also forget sometimes that part of the difficulty is that most of the laity (and many of our priests) are not fluent in the original languages of the ancient texts (Masoretic Hebrew) for the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) and Koine Greek for The Christian Scriptures (New Testament).

Fredrick W. Danker, Professor Emeritus at Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago and editor of The Bauer-Gingrich-Danker Greek English Lexicon of The New Testament, who taught my advanced Koine Greek classes, used to say that “all translators are traders” because, in many cases, the ancient texts—he was speaking of Greek, but it applies also to any ancient language—often do not have equivalents or, at least exact equivalents in modern English (or, in some cases, other languages) so that the translator’s own bias shows through on the word or words that the translator uses. He said sometimes, more often than we would like, translators are well aware that they are using extremely inexact words to make the text comfortable to people (i.e. similar to a popular, but incorrect usage from poor ancient texts or from previous editions which made the error). He was on the translation team for The New Revised Standard Version of The Bible (which most mainline Protestants use) and our New American Bible.

While I said that my specialty was not New Testament exegesis, that was my area of interest originally and so I did a great deal of study in the field prior to changing emphasis. What’s honestly frustrating to me—and there’s no easy way for anyone to overcome it—is when I see people here or elsewhere, proof-texting on a particular topic from the English either out of context or in cases where our English bibles are not faithful to the original language. That happens more often than one might think. I remember Professor Danker telling class that HE was guilty of that as well, either because the translations committee voted for a particular translation OR because he did not want to upset the traditional (although somewhat incorrect) translation that people were used to reading and hearing in church.

Although I’m very orthodox and traditional in my pastoral care approach (see near the end of the thread on the Catholic hospital that lost it’s certification as “Catholic” after performing an abortion), I am not really used to discussions with the more conservative branch of Catholicism. I subscribe to and regularly read The National Catholic Reporter as opposed to the sponsoring publication of this website and am influenced by folks like Yves Congar, Karl Rahner, Hans Küng, Edward Schillebeeckx, Marie-Dominique Chenu, Gregory Baum, Richard McBrien and Protestant scholar Langdon Gilkey than I am the more “conservative” voices in either Catholic or Protestant circles. I read Concilium rather than Communio and Pope John XXIII is my biggest hero among the Popes. I certainly have a more “ecumenical” outlook than I see in the posts here and find the anti-Episcopalian comments in this thread and others morally offensive, because I see Episcopalian ministry as valid even though we do not yet have Inter-communion with them.

Much of what some see as defending “orthodoxy”, I see as “reactionary”, but I, myself, am very orthodox in my conclusions and pastoral response—through, apparently, much more accepting of the validity of not only Episcopal ministry but Protestant communions in general than many posters here.

I’m not real big on the charismatic movement that was so popular a number of years ago or discussions of visions, etc. but I have little tolerance for guys like Brother Mark who play games with the vows those of us Religious took. He’s apparently young so I have some hope.

Like the Methodist minister who has posted here, I find it difficult to give quick, simplistic answers to some fairly complex questions that some seem to want here. Not everything is as simple as people would like especially when dealing with ancient texts. In the ancient texts and in context of the culture in which God inspired the texts, it gets a little more complicated—sometimes allot more complicated. I think that’s why the minister (Pastor Brad) linked to the document on ministry because the question about “ordination” gets much more complicated in the original language—which translators had some difficulty moving to English.

I’ve spent way too much time online here given my schedule and duties, but I’ll try to check in periodically, maybe once a day or so. It can be frustrating and addicting at the same time.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 4:23 AM (EDT):

Fr. Robert George, Thank you for your honesty and candid remarks. It’s refreshing to hear a priest speak as you do. I appreciate that because I believe repentance and redemption are always possible with God’s grace.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 2:10 AM (EDT):

@ New Observer:

I don’t know why my last posts doubled, but as a matter of doctrine I hold to the Catholic position and certainly do not officially condone homosexual relationships as a Catholic priest. As a professor, though I am not a specialist in New Testament exegesis, I have reservations about the traditional Catholic and Protestant interpretation of Romans 1:18-32.

I do not teach, or hold, that my reservations and the persuasive scholarly research represents official Church teaching—which I might add, is much more pastoral than many of the comments on this blog.

Even according to official Church teaching, by no less than Pope Benedict, homosexuals, even sexually active homosexuals are not automatically damned to hell as some, if I remember, posted here.

According to Church teaching, homosexuality is an “objective moral disorder”, etc. but it would be a misnomer by anyone to say that it automatically damns one to hell—even according to Church teaching.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 2:02 AM (EDT):

@ New Observer:

As a priest, I would not conduct a “Holy Union” or “marriage” for homosexuals.
If you are referring to the apparent condemnation of homosexual acts in Romans 1:18-32, I would stand with those scholars who assert that there is a major misunderstanding of the Greek used in these passages, original context in which these passages were written and, quoting one of my Protestant colleagues who presented a major paper on this back in 2006 at a national conference, “the imposition of modern concepts of sexuality which did not exist in the New Testament era.” (I will see if my colleague has the paper online as it is brilliant work and was based on the actual Greek text, using the Nestle-Aland Novum Textamentium Graece, 26th. Edition and The Bauer-Ardnt-Gingrich-Danker, Greek English Lexicon of The New Testament.)

I want to see if his paper is published online rather than delve into an entire discussion of the scholarly arguments.

Suffice to say, for purposes here, that I concur with those scholars—and they are numerous—who challenge the way certain words are translated in our New Testament English texts and secondly, the actual context of the Greek words.

On the other hand, regardless of my many reservations, I uphold and teach in accordance with The Church when I am outside “the ivory tower”.

Father Robert George

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 1:42 AM (EDT):

@ New Observer:

If Pam is seeing Joseph and Mary’s marriage as chaste or celibate, she is within the teaching of Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholic dogma—not popular policy—teaches that Mary was not only a Virgin at the time of her impregnation with the Christ Child, Jesus, but that she was “ever virgin” and, by extension, Joseph, father of Jesus, was celibate, a model for Religious for centuries.

We Catholics accept that as a matter of faith.

From a scholarly perspective, the Greek texts refer to Jesus as having brothers, but Catholic teaching is that these texts actually refer to “cousins”. Having done my primary post-M.Div. studies at Protestant graduate schools, I would say that the Catholic position is NOT supported by the actual ancient texts —which use specific words for biological brothers / sisters rather than “cousins”, but as a Priest I hold to the Catholic position as “an official position of faith”.

Remember, for Catholics Scripture is interpreted through the Magisterium (teaching authority) of The Church rather than just studying the texts—in English or in the original Koine Greek. Those of us who are scholars may discuss certain issues in academic classrooms, but we will usually preach and teach (outside of the Ivory Tower) according to the position of The Church.

Yours in Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 1:42 AM (EDT):

@ New Observer:

If Pam is seeing Joseph and Mary’s marriage as chaste or celibate, she is within the teaching of Roman Catholicism.

Roman Catholic dogma—not popular policy—teaches that Mary was not only a Virgin at the time of her impregnation with the Christ Child, Jesus, but that she was “ever virgin” and, by extension, Joseph, father of Jesus, was celibate, a model for Religious for centuries.

We Catholics accept that as a matter of faith.

From a scholarly perspective, the Greek texts refer to Jesus as having brothers, but Catholic teaching is that these texts actually refer to “cousins”. Having done my primary post-M.Div. studies at Protestant graduate schools, I would say that the Catholic position is NOT supported by the actual ancient texts —which use specific words for biological brothers / sisters rather than “cousins”, but as a Priest I hold to the Catholic position as “an official position of faith”.

Remember, for Catholics Scripture is interpreted through the Magisterium (teaching authority) of The Church rather than just studying the texts—in English or in the original Koine Greek. Those of us who are scholars may discuss certain issues in academic classrooms, but we will usually preach and teach (outside of the Ivory Tower) according to the position of The Church.

Yours in Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 1:27 AM (EDT):

Fr. Robert George —you wrote: ” ...Even though I personally do not agree with those who believe sexually active gays and lesbians in committed relationships are going straight to Hell ...”

Committed relationships or not, how do you reconcile your view as a Catholic priest with Paul’s letter in Romans 1? Or are the letters of Paul not viewed as Catholic doctrine? It’s interesting that the blog is often filled with people telling us what one MUST believe to be Catholic—yet, you a priest, are now selectively choosing your own interpretation of Scripture as Catholics accuse Protestants of doing.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 1:26 AM (EDT):

Everyone,

In case you skipped my lengthy response to Brother Mark, most of us live our vows regardless of how we identify our sexual orientation. I know, through first hand knowledge that some houses of formation, college level seminaries and schools of theology were promoting the kind of crap that Brother Mark posted. In the mid-2006, the Vatican conducted Apostolic Visits at over 230 Schools of Theology in The United States, college level seminaries, houses of formation and other institutions that prepared men for the priesthood to deal with these issues.

I’ve heard from colleagues and from also under The Seal that this is still going on in some houses of formation, in some communities.

We need to pray and I think, honestly, the Church should perhaps reassess the Chasity and Celibacy policies in place very carefully. Apostolic Visits or not, the current environment and regulations promote the “behind the scenes” behavior that Brother Mark brags about here. Regardless of how much that offends piety, the current situation encourages a tendency toward those homosexually oriented or with an immature sexuality (hence the pedophilia) to enter community.

I do not approve of either. I want to be clear.

For a successful integration of chaste single people, married people and children living in a successful, Christ Centered, Orthodox Roman Catholic religious community—check out The Brothers and Sisters of Charity at Little Portion Hermitage, whose spiritual father is the John Michael Talbot. I have been there on private retreat years ago and it was one of the most wonderful experiences of my life.

Yours in Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by New Observer on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 1:15 AM (EDT):

Pam, sorry but your opinion makes no sense. I doubt Peter’s wife would agree with your interpretation. What was she to do with the remainder of her young life—divorce Peter for abandonment? Peter’s travels were as missionary trips and he did return home continually after his varuous journeys. Yes, the dissolution of Peter’s marriage would be outside of God’s character. He would not cause Peter to abandon his wife. You got that information from someone making it up in Catechism class. Also, there are just as many Protestant ministers who have as many (if not more) parishioners than do Catholic priests so your position does not hold.

Struggling with Mary and Joseph’s relationship? You will have to explain that unless you mean Joseph and Mary never had sex after the birth of Christ. Are you saying they both led celibate lives? If you are, there is no foundation in Scripture to support that.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 1:06 AM (EDT):

@ Brother Mark,

I didn’t know what to make of your first post. I treated it as real, but I was hoping that it was a practical joke. I believe, now, that you probably are telling the truth. I have personal knowledge that there are communities in our beloved Church where attitudes like the ones you hold are not only tolerated but encouraged. I am exceedingly sad because young men like yourself are being led astray by people who should know better. They have a great deal to answer for—to The Church and more importantly, God. Your soul is in jeopardy and should you successfully complete the long road to Priestly ordination, the souls of anyone to whom you “minister” are also in jeopardy.

From a scholarly perspective, I know that the way certain pages in the Christian Scriptures are translated into English (that are quoted as prohibitions against homosexuality) are not necessarily accurate. One of my good friends in the ecumenical community, a Congregational pastor and scholar, wrote a convincing article from the Greek on the Pauline passages about “those shameful acts” from what I believe is a more accurate perspective. If the research by the late John Boswell, Walter Wink, my friend and others is correct, it still does not justify your behavior which is in clear violation of Church Teaching—and I don’t mean “small t”.

Even though I personally do not agree with those who believe sexually active gays and lesbians in committed relationships are going straight to Hell, that does not mean that I believe that such a lifestyle is ideal nor does my personal opinion on whether such individuals are automatically damned or not have any bearing on what you are believing and doing—which is a clear violation of your simple vows and a blight on the Body of Christ! You cannot, really cannot, honestly play mental gyrations to make these say whatever you want them to.

You call me a hypocrite because you claim I don’t tell people on this forum what’s really going on in our Beloved Church—that the majority of men and women in Religious Orders or Congregations are gay or lesbian and that the majority of men in “secular” priesthood are gay.

In all my years in Community and nearly 30 in ordained ministry, I don’t know that to be absolutely true. Yes, a number of men self-identify as homosexual—including several who live in my immediate home—but I do not have the exact numbers. I also know a number of men, myself included, who identify as heterosexual.

I seem to remember an article in “Review for Religious” that covered this issue based on some confidential survey that most received and returned, but I don’t have the issue handy.

As a Religious and as a Priest, I really don’t care how many men in the Priesthood or Religious Life identify as “gay” or how many identify as “straight”. I don’t. I don’t care how many Sisters in Religious congregations identify as “lesbian” or “straight”. I do not care how many Nuns in monastic convents identify as “lesbian” or how many of their fellow sisters identify as “straight”. None of this really matters if we all are living our Vows (or in the case of “secular” priests, their “promises”) as the vows (or promises) are worded. No reinterpretation. Living them as worded, not as you want them to be, renders the sexual orientation question moot.

Have I found some women over the years very attractive? Sure. Have I ever pursued an emotional relationship with one, even as “friendship” that might lead to the situation that Father Albert Cutié found himself in? Have I ever been sexually active with them or even put myself in a situation where that would be a temptation? Heavens NO! NO! NO!

Do I know that a number of my fellow priests are involved in sexual relationships with other priests or brothers, consensually and in ways that 1.) do not involve children; 2.) do not involve situations that would cause public scandal; and 3.) make no identifiable negative effects on their “public ministry”? Yes, sadly, I do. Just because I am aware of such situations, and just because the men and the women in our pews (who pay our bills with their tithes) does not make such lifestyles honorable. It does not make them, according to Catholic Moral Teaching (magisterium) honest or correct and it certainly does not excuse you or your superiors.

I also know that the kind of behavior in your house is one of the reasons that Vatican conducted Apostolic Visits of 230 schools of theology, college-level seminaries, houses of formation and other schools that form priests.

I had hoped that the kind of nonsense your spewing was a thing of the past, but I know that its not. I’m not shocked because I know that it is more common than anyone would like even after the Apostolic Visits. To me, that means that we need more work done to correct a serious problem.

Regarding the discipline of celibacy or chastity, I do wish that more lay people understood that it is a discipline of the Church, not a doctrine, and it flowery language and piety aside, it may not make one particularly “holy”—although that’s what most of us were taught as children and often even as adults. Jimmy pointed out in section one of his series why the Vatican is unlikely to change the regulation regarding priestly celibacy. I personally think that the Vatican’s resistance to changing this regulation for Western Catholics (i.e. Latin Rite) is largely financial and perhaps an awareness that millions of Catholics, including priests and religious, do not understand that this really is not part of the Sacred Calling to priesthood. I think, as Jimmy pointed out, that it would be such a major change after so many years that millions might leave the Faith. It would be silly to do so since we’re talking about a policy not doctrine, but that distinction may be lost on many.

Even if, after preparing the laity and Religious, for a lifting of the mandatory chastity or celibacy rule, the Church allowed married priests (like our Protestant brothers and sisters in Christ do), it would not permit, justify or condone what you are doing—which the Church classifies as an “objective disorder”. Pope Benedict, himself, as Cardinal in charge of The Congregation of The Doctrine of The Faith himself addressed this his October 1, 1986, document Homosexualitatis problema.

Please, if you really want to serve God, talk to a priest outside of your community under the Seal of Confession. Deal with your sexuality and proper ways to address it within the traditional interpretation of Vows. Please reconsider if you have a Calling because what you’re doing now can only lead down the wrong path.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Pam on Friday, Jan, 7, 2011 12:26 AM (EDT):

New Observer: You think it “would be outside God’s character” to call Peter away from his family? Not at all! Receiving that kind of grace changes men. Do you doubt He could call someone away and still provide for the family? Do you doubt that through His grace Peter could leave them? You must struggle with Mary and Joseph’s relationship. You are speaking all conjecture. As to protestant ministers, God bless them. We have daily mass, seven sacraments, many more parisioners than most protestant churches, ccd and the Fullness of truth. In that fullness is the key to the celibate priest and why it is preferable, because on the altar they are in persona Christi, who walked this earth celibate. Grace makes all this possible and beautiful and sacred and awe-inspiring.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 11:02 PM (EDT):

Brother Mark - Listening to your formation director and others in your order does not show wisdom on your part. It means you are impressionable and the ONLY Person that should make an impression on our lives is our Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ.

Your post proves why I do not listen to the Pope of the Day, etc. without being like the Bereans, seeing if what they say squares with Scripture.

What you wrote does not shock me. In fact, it proves much of what I already knew. It is proof positive that Pew People can’t rely on any parish priest, rector, bishop, cardinal… or even pope, to teach them. We must ALL be in the Word, because it’s obvious that seminarians such as the ones in your order are not.

I have three words for you: Romans Chapter One.
I have three words for everyone: Read the Word.

Posted by Gus on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 10:36 PM (EDT):

Excellent reflection by Jimmy Akin. I agree with it 100%

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 10:17 PM (EDT):

Pam, you state: ” ...but everyone Jesus called He asked to walk away from everything and follow Him. All the apostles, the young rich man- remember? It is the BEST way to be a priest because He tells us He is a jealous lover and because the workers are few. They can’t do the job now. How could they do it wholeheartedly with families and all the responsibility that brings.”

For those who are unable to do the job now, it is often because of the way the local parish and local diocese are currently structured operational wise. The business model works well in some dioceses, however it is less successful in others. All Pastors and all Bishops are not blessed with executive management and administrative skills to multi-task what is required in the modern church. Some are stubborn and wish to devote their time micro managing rather than delegating.

I am not necessarily advocating for married priests, however, you are incorrect on two counts. Jesus did not call Peter to leave and abandon his wife. That would be outside of God’s character. Other Apostles were also married. As for how can a married clergy wholeheartedly serve God and their families as well? Most Protestant Pastors perform this task quite effectively. I would challenge you if you believe their devotion to Christ is any less sincere than that of a Catholic priest.

Posted by Pam on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 9:49 PM (EDT):

Keep the faith, Kathy. We are certainly being made aware of the brokeness of homosexuals. Their situation is so painful that they will try to force recognition of their condition as “normal” and push it into every environment. @Brother Mark to juxtapose your sexual escapades with getting closer to Christ and community is sad. “No sodomite will enter the gates of heaven.” “Deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me.” It is true the Church went off course. Satan was given 100 years to destroy the Church, but his 100 years were the twentieth century. His time is up and God is calling us back to holiness. You have been raised in troubled times. If you have to choose, chose God. We know how this all ends. God wins.@Cradle Catholic you forget that the Catholic faith has the fullness of truth. Our priests may never have been required to be celibate, but everyone Jesus called He asked to walk away from everything and follow Him. All the apostles, the young rich man- remember? It is the BEST way to be a priest because He tells us He is a jealous lover and because the workers are few. They can’t do the job now. How could they do it wholeheartedly with families and all the responsibility that brings. So no, in a Church with the fullness of truth, a priest wouldn’t be married. His heart soul mind and bodies are God’s. That’s part of the Truth of how we should all love God and also they are in persona Christi who walked the earth celibate.

Celibacy in our church is a joke. It’s a human rule and Akin spelled it out big time in his first blog Cutie. The church doesn’t want to change this human made policy (not doctrine, policy) because ppl would freak out and stop giving the church $$$ because we’ve been “doing” it so long that ppl think it come from on high and it does not.

There would also be a tremendous amount of confusion among faithful and clergy alike, with the possible loss of faith on the part of literally millions of faithful and clergy as well—for not everyone understands the issue in the factually precise terms we have been discussing it.

Loss of faith??? If that’s what gives y’all faith, you got no faith. Faith in Jesus = salvation, not whether your priest is married or not, straight or not.
Seriously, I told you the truth in my last post which isn’t displayed yet, most of us are Queer and the structure encourages that….so allowing married priests would threaten the Queer Power Structure….and Father George, if he’s really a therapist for the church and a priest, knows this but he’s too pc to tell ya all.

As I said before, with all the molestations, you all still don’t get it…and you buy the pious lies../.....

As for me I may love my brothers and I love my Jesus…. but I got my eyes wide open….and its wrong to confuse human ruile witth the will of God.

Brother Mark

Posted by Brother Mark on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 7:54 PM (EDT):

To Fr. George,

Padre, I’m at a house of studies while studying philosophy at University as a prerequisite to seminary. In my house, we’ve got 7 guys and 6 are Queer. We don’t know about the other guy. He says he’s straight, but we got our doubts.

For your information, my Order and my Formation Director know about us.

Our Formation Director knows that we’re Queer and he says he was involved in creating the Rainbow Coalition at St. Louis University around 1990. His says it’s OK to show physical love, just keep it in the house and don’t create a scene. It’s a freaking HUMAN RULE y’all are worried about not a “dogma” of the church. You of all ppl should know that and these idiot lay people who got other ideas, they just are brainwashed and misinformed. Piety and human tradition do not make something holy just because its the way things have always been done.

You, Padre, esp. if you’ve worked in psych stuff for your community and have been a priest for over 30 years, you are a hypocrite because you know that most Religious brothers and priests are sexually active gay guys…that’s about all the church gets who are willing to move into an all male sexually charged environment. You know what I’m saying is true. My Formation Director and some of the other Fully Professed say that about 85% of all religious and priests are Queer but only about 1% molest kids or cause scandal. Regardless of what y’all tell the lay people, like my parents, you know what I’m saying is true. And, the church has been set up that way for centuries. I got nothing to confess about this, but I’m calling you the hypocrite that you are. Why not be honest here at least. It’s an anonymous forum, you can do it and what, the church going to come after you?

I love Jesus and I love Mary and the Saints and the Mass, wow, the liturgy is a blast, God present among us, but I also love my brothers in a way that none of you can understand… it’s like a connection that brings us closer to God and to the community… so we say the right things in class…but I know, we all know, that God made us who we are….God calls us for who we are….God loves us for who we are….God calls us as we are… and that’s not to be confused with any human made rule even if the lay idiots here think its one in the same.

To Kathy16670: You’re a joke and a riot. You’re the kind of Catholic that drives regular priests, brothers and nuns nuts. You’re such an idiot that you confuse human tradition with God’s Sacred Tradition and you can check with ANY reputable text on that, even the blogger here mentioned that celibacy is a human rule (discipline) not doctrine… so get off your pious butt and get real…. most brothers, most nuns, most priests are NOT celibate…it’s a LIE that we tell the lay people….and you buy it… plenty want to be….they run from themselves…thinking that going all holy is going to get them out of it…but those are the ones who end up molesting children…or are you blind, deaf and dumb to that….are you? The rape of kids by priests and nuns…not only here in the U.S. but in Germany and Ireland….and…Latin America….and now in Africa, it’s just come out…. It’s surprising they don’t change our church to a criminal enterprise….and if you just woke up…and the the game playing stopped….then God’s love through Jesus could be honestly proclaimed….

Padre George, I guess I do have something now to Confess, I really enjoy watching the ultraconservos freak out because ppl like you aren’t being honest with them and they’re ideals need to be shattered so they can be made real. It’s a real jolt and that I will confess. Somnehow I think they’ll block this and prove that ultraconservos publications like this don’t believe in free discourse.

Brother Mark
(Proud Catholic Queer)

Posted by Roger Smith on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 7:43 PM (EDT):

@Kathy16670

I am sorry. Why is it that you think you cannot have a civilized dialong with me? What have said or done that has been uncivilized to you? I think I have been reasonable.

Is this evidence of a defense mechanism coming out because you cannot answer my points?

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 7:41 PM (EDT):

Kathy16670: May I please have a specific example of the “name calling”?

If my mention of “think, think, think” offended you, may I suggest it could be because you do NOT think for yourself, and that’s why my words hit a nerve? With that said, I do apologize, for having offended you. I am sorry, and will be more sensitive in the future.

All too clearly, I remember not having thought much about my faith, prior to reading the Bible, and I, too, would have been offended, if someone suggested I think for myself. So your point is well taken. Thank you.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 7:25 PM (EDT):

@ Roger Smith and
@ Cradle Catholic
To shorten my answers to both of you, simply re-read Jimmy’s first article on this topic
http://www.ncregister.com/blog/fr.-cutie-fallen-priest-writes-self-justifying-book/Points 1-12 all speak for me.
I’m just too strange and stupid (think…think…think,) to try and have a civilized dialog with either of you.
If you must resort to insults and name calling, I don’t have anything more to say to either of you.

BEAUTIFUL example of Christian charity.

Posted by New Observer on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 7:13 PM (EDT):

After all these posts, the only thing we should now regret is that Cutie will soon be pushing his book on the TODAY SHOW with Matt Lauer (or worse)—with OPRAH. Thank God Larry King is no longer available. Cutie’s 15 minutes of fame have come and gone. And so should end this blog.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 6:04 PM (EDT):

To Kathy16670 - you wrote: “There are 3 states in life, religious, married, and single. The first and the last require celibacy…It is our oversexed culture that is the problem.”

1) What are the SPECIFIC qualifications for ALL ordained people in church ministry, according to the BIBLE? What did St. Paul have to say about it, in his Pastoral Letters to Timothy & Titus? (hint: it’s in the Bible)

2) Regarding our “oversexed culture” being the problem - do you see the ONLY purpose in marriage is for men to have sex? Really, that’s it? The ONLY benefit a wife brings to the table of marriage is SEX?

3) Why is it that ANY PRIEST CAN ADOPT a child, or even CHILDREN, by merely getting permission from his bishop, but a priest cannot EVER marry a woman? You don’t find that odd? Like Pooh says, “Think. Think. Think.”

Posted by Roger Smith on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 6:01 PM (EDT):

@Kathy16670

I mistyped something.

The following:

“I am not sure that we want to say that only men in the Roman Rite can be called to priesthood and marriage simultaneously when in the Eastern Rite we have men who are called to priesthood and marriage simultaneously. Is this the God you believe in? If it is, I think you are strange.”

It should have been:

“I am not sure that we want to say that only men in the Roman Rite can be called to priesthood or marriage when in the Eastern Rite we have men who are called to priesthood and marriage. Is this the God you believe in? If it is, I think you are strange.”

Posted by Roger Smith on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 5:56 PM (EDT):

@Kathy16670

Let me respond to your reply to my comment. First, I am a very orthodox Catholic. Orthodoxy here means that I believe in the creed and the magisterium to date. Furthermore, I have a graduate degree in Catholic theology. My opinions are well formed by study, not public opinion and homilies. There is nothing ‘un-Catholic’ about believing that marriage should be an option for those seeking ordination to the priesthood. We have married Catholic priests as an extraordinary situation in the Roman Rite and as an ordinary situation in Eastern Catholicism. Also, as I said before, we also have excellent examples in the Orthodox Church. Celibacy in Christianity started with Our Lord Jesus Christ and he recommended it for those who could do it, but he did not make this a requirement to be an apostle; as we know, Peter and the several other apostles, were in fact married (gasp!). That means he was in a marriage and probably had sex and children (gasp!). Please read 1 Corinthians 9:1-10 my sister. It might change your mind.

A married priesthood does not detract from the beauty of celibacy. Far from it! By having both side by side we can grow in appreciation of the gifts of both states. Both marriage and celibacy are eschatological symbols that are very powerful when lived faithfully. Maybe you need to understand Christian marriage a little better in order to understand that.

Second, I was not justifying Fr. Cutie’s actions. What he did was wrong. There is no doubt about that; however, I think his situation was caused by feeling and attraction to both vocations—marriage and priesthood. As I argued before, there is absolutely no dogma or article of faith in the Catholic church that says reception of Holy Orders to the priesthood excludes marriage ipso facto. Look for it day and night and you will not find it. Why? Because it doesn’t exist. If you don’t believe me, send an email to any major theologian (conservative or liberal) and you will see that I am correct. The current policy of the Church makes men who have an attraction to the priesthood force to chose between marriage or priesthood when in fact these things are theologically not mutually exclusive. Thus, we have some men choosing to become priests and embrace celibacy when they do not have the gift. It can’t just be a sacrifice they make. They need to have the CHARISM!!! I am not sure that we want to say that only men in the Roman Rite can be called to priesthood and marriage simultaneously when in the Eastern Rite we have men who are called to priesthood and marriage simultaneously. Is this the God you believe in? If it is, I think you are strange.

@Takahashi

I never said that what Fr. Cutie did was right. I am merely wrote that I think he was probably called to both marriage and priesthood, and because the Church forced him to choose one he chose what believe was the better one; however, one critical thing was lacking, the charism of celibacy. Celibacy is a supernatural charism in the Catholic theological understanding. It is not something accomplished simply by choice and sacrifice. When you hear Fr. Cutie speak about his desire to get married, you can see that he always desired a family and he tried everything to live a celibate life. You have to see his interview in Spanish on Univision. I think it would give you a different perspective. Why do we have a Church that excludes married men from the priesthood? We cannot justify it through theology and practical reasons are not good enough. Perhaps if we had a married priesthood, we would have more authentic celibate priests (which are a TREMENDOUS blessing).

It is true that there are types of priesthoods that allow marriage - However, he did not choose to become a priest in one of these then convert to Roman Catholicism. Therefore, he had the options that were stated in the blog and chose to ignore them… I haven’t ever met a married priest, though I know they exist, and so I can’t validly form an opinion on that, only on the fact that he broke his vows.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Thursday, Jan, 6, 2011 4:18 PM (EDT):

I am really disappointed in the “Priests shouldn’t be celibate” comments here.

I expect comments like that from the non-Catholics who just drop by to harass, but not from the Catholics themselves.

The celibacy of our good and holy Priests and our devout woman religious have changed civilizations, and brought the gospel to the otherwise inaccessible lowest casts of people. It would require a lengthily explanation, but history proves this to be true.

There are 3 states in life, religious, married, and single. The first and the last require celibacy.

It is our oversexed culture that is the problem, not that Religious and Singles can’t control themselves.

Priests are married to the Church. Would you say to a married man “well, you shouldn’t be expected to be faithful to your wife”?

For myself, I will continue to believe that the Holy Father will continue to steer the”ship of Peter” on the correct course, because he is guided by the Holy Spirit. If there ever comes a time when celibacy is no longer necessary, Pope Benedict will be the first to know. However, in this day and age, I’m sure that the grace brought to us by the sacrifice of celibacy is something we are in DIRE need of.

Here is an idea: Allow a married priesthood (before they are ordained). The Orthodox Church and Easter Rite Catholics have an unbroken tradition of married priests predating the schism. We in the Roman Rite have forced men to choose between priesthood or marriage when in fact these are not mutually exclusive states in life from a dogmatic perspective.

We must accept that some men are called to priesthood and marriage. There is no reason to believe that this is not true. No one can make a cogent theological point against this; otherwise, it would sound something like this: God doesn’t call men who desire to be married and priests ONLY in the Roman Rite. That is foolishness and everyone knows it.

The Vatican has done a good job in making ordinary Catholic buy into arguments that make it sound like married priests are less devoted or less available than married priests. I dare you to say that to a validly and licitly ordained married priest. I dare you!

Jimmy, I find these posts an example of your self-rigteousness. I don’t see any good coming out of bringing up this priest again and again. He is one of many people who have done this. Big deal. Boring.

This is really sad. The Priesthood is a wonderful thing that should be respected. I, for one, am so thankful for the Priests in my life because of the guidance they give and because of being able to take confession.

Yet, when I go on this certain art site that I’m a member of, there are a lot of Priest ‘fetishists’ who draw Priests in sexy positions and stuff, and talk about how they lust after them… these are from people that are not Catholic, but it’s still disturbing, that they don’t realize what they’re doing and saying by having such an attitude.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 10:53 PM (EDT):

Father Robert George - THANK YOU FOR YOUR STRONG POST TO “BROTHER MARK”.
It’s refreshing. And I agree with you. I’m glad you clarified that you were only stating historical facts to me, and it was not your opinion.

I am leery when even Catholic priests write about our Church, because I know one former priest that does not even believe Jesus is God! This man (though now old) would love to be back on the altar; frankly, I’m glad he’s off! He left to marry 30+ years ago, after fathering children out of wedlock by the same woman (at least he was honorable about it, but like Fr. Cutie, only AFTER the relationship was made public).

One point about which I disagree with you - but I may be wrong, so if you have Biblical proof, and UNIVERSAL CHURCH TRADITION to prove I’m wrong, I’ll accept it. I am very interested in your thoughts….

You wrote: “THERE WERE WOMEN LEADING CONGREGATIONS IN THE EARLY CHURCH”
If you are referring to Phoebe, who was called a deaconess, I don’t accept that role as a “leader”. The way I see it, in Scripture women have different ROLES than men, and women are not to be in a leadership role OVER men. By the way, a lot of people think I am a man. WRONG- I’m a woman. So I’m not being sexist in any way, by being convinced women are not to be ordained priests.

There may be a case for a woman to be ordained a deacon. It is a service oriented role, and it helps the ordained priesthood. Further, women have been doing the work of a deacon without the title, for years.

All that said, I maintain that NO WHERE in Scripture does it approve of any woman being ordained to the priesthood. And NO WHERE in UNIVERSAL Church Tradition can women be found to be in “leadership” roles OVER men.
Lydia’s house having a church in Thessalonica (all that is from memory, I may be wrong) would not cut it today, with “churches” the size we have.
Get folks back to just worshipping and observing the Lord’s Supper at home, like they did in Acts of the Apostles, then it may be different.

I once had a New Age-type ‘theologian’ nun become IRATE with me, because I asked her for 1) any verse in Scripture that would indicate approval for the ordination of women and 2) any source that shows Universal Church Tradition accepted it. She came up dry, and told me to “see how the Episcopaleans did it”. After hearing that, I didn’t give a hoot what she thought about anything. Some “theologian”. Spare us.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 10:49 PM (EDT):

Fr. George, Even Jesus got fed up sometimes - how he talked to Peter and tossing tables at the temple. Part of the problem is we are being handcuffed by political correctness or people who would have us be more Christian than Christ. You said nothing to apologize for. Your response shows your shock and dismay and it should. We agree totally on this one.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 10:32 PM (EDT):

To Kathy16670- You wrote: “Then, can you please explain:
“I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided.”

Cradle Catholic’s response:
Kathy, WHO is St. Paul addressing? WHO is he talking about? Is he writing about those people wanting to be in the ordained ministry? If not, what does St. Paul say qualifications FOR THOSE IN ORDAINED MINISTRY should be?

Kathy - if you have children, would you want your car mechanic to perform a medical procedure on your child? Or would you want your child given medical treatment by someone WITH THE PROPER QUALIFICATIONS?

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 10:19 PM (EDT):

I apologize to everyone for my strong language in the previous post. If the young man is telling the truth in his post and not someone having “online fun” or whatever, it is grave and serious matter if I’m reading between the lines correctly, as I’m sure most of us—whether laypeople or clergy—agree.

It’s this kind of thinking that leads to people like Father Albert Cutié justifying his actions and the very topic of this thread.

I hope that if Brother Mark, if real, cannot accept and live his vows in the traditional manner, he leaves Religious Life now rather than take final vows. (I’m assuming he’s in a “house of studies” taking philosophy requirements before seminary.)

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 10:10 PM (EDT):

Brother Mark,

Reading carefully your comments, it sounds like you are one of ours (Catholic) since you refer to our Episcopalian brothers and sisters in Christ in the third person.

I gather you are in a house of studies for one of our religious orders or apostolic communities. Dear Lord, if I were your Rector or your Spiritual Director, we’d have some serious and I do mean serious issues. I would write to you privately if I had your email, but National Catholic Register does not publish those, so I’m stuck in an imperfect situation of having to chastise you in a public forum.

Our Vows, as Religious, are NOT metaphorical or something to be reinterpeted in some weird word game as “spiritual” but not literal.

When I read your comments: Many of us in my house see our vows in a non-traditional manner. We accept them spiritually and metaphorically rather than literally. It’s the spirit of the chaste life that matters rather than whether a guy experiences love of another what I envision is that a bunch of you are either paired off in immoral and illicit homosexual relationships which is WRONG or, and I shudder at this, massive homosexual romps!

Since anyone can be anyone online, I pray that you’re not really in a formation program, but if you are, I can only wonder what in the hell your Formation Director is doing!

I’ve been ordained for nearly 30 years and in Community longer than that. While there are little things that many of us were able to hide from our Superiors (like a member of my community who used to sneak cigarettes), I cannot imagine that your Rector, Formation Director and Spiritual Director are blind to what’s going on, especially in light of the scandals in The Church.

In my time as a priest, as a Spiritual Director, and as an academic, I’ve heard of some Religious interpreting the Vow of Chasitiy as “no sex with women”, but that is not the vow that all of us take. That is an inaccurate, self-serving reinterpretation of the Vow that takes “creative theology” to a new, and horrific, level.

If you have any intention of staying in Religious life, assuming you ARE in Religious Life, get your butt to confession NOW and also schedule a lengthy appointment with your Spiritual Director and MAYBE, if he advises, also with your Formation Director!

Chasity is not for everyone, but it is an essential requirement of Religious Life and currently, as a discipline, of The Roman Catholic Priesthood. Please do not make a mockery of it!

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 9:51 PM (EDT):

@ Cradle Catholic,

Sorry to disappoint you, I am a Roman Catholic priest for nearly 30 years and a vowed Religious for longer than that. In addition to parish work, I’ve been, I’ve mentioned in previous postings either in this thread or another, a licensed clinical social worker, and served on the faculty at several universities, both Catholic and non-Catholic. I am currently a parish priest, nearing retirement from “active ministry”. (I forgot that not all of us are on all the same threads. I originally stated posting on this site because of the “Catholic” hospital in Arizona which performed an Abortion and The Bishop of Phoenix revoked the “Catholic” status.)

My statement about “many denominations” is accurate. Various Protestant denominations do ordain sexually active, openly gay or lesbian individuals to the ministry. I did not say that I approved. I simply made a statement that is correct in itself.For the record, I do not! It is, as far as I’m concerned, probably the major reason we should not and cannot have inter-communion with our brothers and sisters in The Episcopal Church.

The Bible is inspired by God, in a unique way among all documents. Pope Leo XIII, Vatican I and Vatican II affirms this. However, it is a principle of modern Biblical scholarship, something most Roman Catholic clergy accept even if it’s not talked about from the pulpit, is that much of the content of The Bible is not literal history, but contains inspired stories to teach moral truths. It is also a major concept in modern Biblical scholarship to look at everything that is written within the specific historical and cultural context in which it was written.

Father Richard McBrian,Crowley-O’Brien Professor of Theology at the University of Notre Dame, author of the controversal two volume Catholicism, puts it this way (Vol. 1, page 64):

A consensus of biblical and theological scholars favors the following principles:

1.) The words of the Bible are true only in the sense that the human authors conveyed them. Therefore, we must determine how they thought, what influenced them and so forth. 2.) The human author himself was not necessarily without error. Many of his personal opinions and even convictions may have been wrong. But inerrancy means that those opinions and convictions do not affect the message itself. 3.) Inerrancy does not rule out the use of common literary devices such as poetry, figures of speech, paradox, approximation, compressed narratives, inexact quotations, folklore, legend, song. 4.) The human authors were Oriental, not Western. They did not think metaphysically or according to the rules of Scholastic logic. Insofar as the principle of inerrancy applies, it applies to those essential religious affirmations which are made for the sake of our Salvation. ‘The Books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching firmly, faithfully and without error the truth which God put into the Sacred Writings for the sake of our salvation.’ (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, n,11)

While I don’t agree with everything that McBrien wrote in his classic work on Catholcism, I do agree with the points I quoted in the paragraph above and I have used his book, in past years, as required text for undergraduate students taking Senior Seminars in theology.

Thus, while I personally would not have a problem with women priests—THERE WERE WOMEN LEADING CONGREGATIONS IN THE EARLY CHURCH—the issue of certain denominations ordaining openly gay and lesbian clergy is, for orthodox Catholics, a problem.

Even though most of us are living our vows (or, in the case of secular priests, their promises) regardless of sexual orientation, the real irony is that The Church probably has more ordained sexually active clergy (our “official positions” not withstanding) than those denominations that publicly ordain openly gay, non-celibate homosexuals.

Please understand that I’m most comfortable as an academic. When I carefully post a statement, it does not mean that I agree with that statement unless I specifically STATE that I am editorializing or in agreement.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 9:32 PM (EDT):

:The Bible clearly states that those in the ordained ministy are ideally, MARRIED MEN, and with families.

Then, can you please explain:

“I should like you to be free of anxieties. An unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how he may please the Lord.
But a married man is anxious about the things of the world, how he may please his wife, and he is divided. An unmarried woman or a virgin is anxious about the things of the Lord, so that she may be holy in both body and spirit. A married woman, on the other hand, is anxious about the things of the world, how she may please her husband.
I am telling you this for your own benefit, not to impose a restraint upon you, but for the sake of propriety and adherence to the Lord without distraction. ” 1 Cor 7:32-35

Also:

Mt 19:12
Jer 16:1-4
1 Cor 7:8
2 Tim 2:3-4
1 Tim 5:9-12

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 8:28 PM (EDT):

Father Robert George on Tuesday, Jan 4, 2011 9:08 PM (EST)wrote:

“Cradle Catholic,

Over time various religious denominations have looked at the ancient texts in light of contemporary issues and insights gained from Biblical scholarship. Some ordain women, some allow divorce, some ordain gays and lesbians etc. but in general, a good character is expected and, of course, evidence that God is calling one to ministry and, in this litigious day, sanity and stability measured from a psychological perspective.”

THAT’S BUNK.

Fr. George, I hope you are NOT a Roman Catholic priest. God’s TRUTH does NOT change over time. in matters of morals, it most certainly is the same today, as yesterday. God is the same, yesterday, today and forever.

This is why it is SO important to hold firm to the tenets of the Bible, including the ones about how a church is to be structured. It is downright dangerous to IGNORE God’s Word, in favor of ‘modernizing’ the church. In God’s economy, there is no such thing as “ancient”.

The Bible clearly states that those in the ordained ministy are ideally, MARRIED MEN, and with families. They are to be of good character. NO WOMEN ARE TO BE LEADING MEN. NO OPENLY & SEXUALLY ACTIVE HOMOSEXUAL MEN OR WOMEN ARE TO BE ORDAINED. Read Romans Chapter One. Please tell me you are not a Roman Catholic priest.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 3:45 PM (EDT):

To Mark O’Brian

“I expect nobody here will understand what I’m saying judging from the comments. But if you expect that many of your priests are really celibate or chaste in the traditional sense and straight, well, gosh….you just keep on believing that.”

Your statement is astounding to me!

You identify yourself as “Brother,” and a student. Are you Episcopalian, or Catholic. I certainly hope from your comments that you are Episcopalian. If not, then you are in the wrong church.

Posted by Pam on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 3:31 PM (EDT):

Brother Mark, You are playing word games with yourself. You obviously haven’t died to the flesh. Are you even praying for the grace to honor vows or promises of celibacy? Or do you just make a mockery of it all. Where is this coming from? “The Cutie guy couldn’t do celibacy.” So Gabriel lied when He said nothing is impossible with God. I don’t believe it. I’m not sure if this post is a joke or serious. If it’s serious I pray for an increase in your faith. Spiritually and metaphysically but not literally? I hope you love lots of women and lots of men - as brothers and sister. It is the form of love that is in error. Lust is not love. God bless.

Good evening to you all. Taking a break from studies after one of my classmates sent me the link to this discussion.

I personally don’t understand why you’re all so worked up this Cutie guy’s exodus to the Episcopal Church and whether his Eucharist is the same as ours: that was established in the The Anglican-Roman Catholic Consultation, sponsored in America as an official project of The U.S. Catholic Conference of Bishops and The Episcopal Church (mentioned earlier in this discussion). It’s not important anyway. If Episcopalians believe it’s valid then for them it’s valid for them and that’s all the counts.

This Cutie guy couldn’t do celibacy, he fell in love with a woman, a very normal thing for straight guys. Y’all should rejoice. A straight priest who showed his human side and could have dealt with it better if the church didn’t have a stupid, human policy that’s not divine @ all, not doctrine.

Many of us in my house see our vows in a non-traditional manner. We accept them spiritually and metaphorically rather than literally. It’s the spirit of the chaste life that matters rather than whether a guy experiences love of another.

I expect nobody here will understand what I’m saying judging from the comments. But if you expect that many of your priests are really celibate or chaste in the traditional sense and straight, well, gosh….you just keep on believing that.

God loves us as sexual beings and as we love one another. So I say rejoice with Cutie that he found a place where he could follow his heart and still serve God.

This has all turned rather weird over the past 24 hours. Count me out of the discussion at this point.

Posted by Father Robert George on Wednesday, Jan, 5, 2011 12:08 AM (EDT):

Cradle Catholic,

Over time various religious denominations have looked at the ancient texts in light of contemporary issues and insights gained from Biblical scholarship. Some ordain women, some allow divorce, some ordain gays and lesbians etc. but in general, a good character is expected and, of course, evidence that God is calling one to ministry and, in this litigious day, sanity and stability measured from a psychological perspective.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 11:58 PM (EDT):

I’ll jump in here. I think what Pastor Brad was trying to say is that there isn’t an easy or short answer to your question because the original language is not translated exactly into English and is often translated inconsistently. Remember, these are ancient documents written in a different culture and time. The writers also use different terms for ministry without always explaining the duties or whether these were “constant and fixed”.

Short answer: There were different types of ministry in Early Christianity. Married and single men and some women held positions of leadership depending on the community and congregation.

There is a text that many use to describe the qualities expected of one who is ordained. 1st. Timothy 3:1-14:

This saying is trustworthy: whoever aspires to the office of bishop desires a noble task. Therefore, a bishop must be irreproachable, married only once, not a drunkard, not aggressive, but gentle, not contentious, not a lover of money. He must manage his own household well, keeping his children under control with perfect dignity;

for if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how can he take care of the church of God?

He should not be a recent convert, so that he may not become conceited and thus incur the devil’s punishment.
He must also have a good reputation among outsiders, so that he may not fall into disgrace, the devil’s trap.

Similarly, deacons must be dignified, not deceitful, not addicted to drink, not greedy for sordid gain, holding fast to the mystery of the faith with a clear conscience. Moreover, they should be tested first; then, if there is nothing against them, let them serve as deacons.

Women, similarly, should be dignified, not slanderers, but temperate and faithful in everything.

Deacons may be married only once and must manage their children and their households well.
Thus those who serve well as deacons gain good standing and much confidence in their faith in Christ Jesus.

Isn’t there a SHORT answer somewhere, like “Married men can apply. Single men can apply, and can marry at any time in their life, no matter their role: whether deacon, priest, bishop, cardinal or pope. Families are welcome.”

That’s what I’m looking for - just a short list of qualifications, like those listed in the Bible. Not that I don’t appreciate the crash course in divinity. But where’s St. Paul for us average pew people, when I need him? Please, brevity!

What irks me is priests can (and do) adopt children, with the permission of their bishop, but a wife is considered “too much trouble.”

Secondly, The Last Temptation of Christ is fiction. Fr. Cutie’s life is non-fiction. BIG difference.

Maybe Fr. Cutie will answer this question about what qualifications are best for the ordained ministry, & simply, in his book! Actually, I think Fr. Cutie & other sexually active clergymen (priests & bishops), whether heterosexual or homosexual, are being victimized by a church that refuses to do “Church” God’s way.

In middle age, I am not the same person I was when I was 25. People grow and change. How about the readers of this post? Are you the same person today as you were at age 25, and would you be able to be completely continent, with a busy and sometimes isolated life, with no support or validation from the opposite sex… ever? I think most of the clergy goes into the priesthood with good, and perhaps idealistic, intentions. When the bloom is off the rose, and opportunity knocks - they ‘lapse’.

On a lighter note, my observation, Pastor Brad, is you’re a good sport, and your family & congregation are fortunate to have you! Thank you for your kindness & insight on this post.

Posted by Pastor Brad on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 9:52 PM (EDT):

Correction..
I meant to say that none of this stuff matters (to non-Catholics) anymore than you would care if someone was violating the rules of my denomination’s Book of Discipline.

Sorry about the typo.

Pastor Brad

Posted by Pastor Brad on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 9:50 PM (EDT):

A comment to all,

I think much to much is being made over Father Albert Cutié‘s television appearences and his book. It’s like when Rome criticized “The Last Temptation of Christ”, all it did was make people want to see the movie and ended up putting money in the distributor’s and theater’s pockets. When I finally saw the movie years later on video with a Roman Catholic Fransiscan, my wife and an American Baptist pastor and his wife, all we could say was, “What an awful movie.”

Father Cutié is the media celeb of the moment because he’s charismatic and it’s juicy. That’s what media likes.

Roman Catholics may consider his marriage invalid or that he’s functioning in the priesthood illicitly, but to the rest of us (non-Roman Catholics) none of this internal doctrinal stuff of your communion matters anymore than whether someone in my communion is violating The Book of Discipline, our version of what you would call Canon Law.

Am I glad he went Episcopalian rather than joining The United Methodist Church? Yes, because he’s their problem now, not mine and, not your communion’s either.

If I were an Episcopalian Associate Pastor, would I want him as my Priest-in-Charge? No way.

If I were an Episcopalian lay person, would I want Fr. Cutié as my parish priest? No way.

But, we’re not faced with those situations. The Episcopal Church recognized his ordination and assigned him to be priest-in-charge at a congregation. It is their heirarchy and their lay people who must live with the consequences.

Thank you for allowing me to share another perspective.

Pastor Brad

Posted by Pastor Brad on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 9:33 PM (EDT):

Dear Cradle Catholic,

I’m glad a “United Methodist Elder” will do. <LOL> In the United Methodist Church an “Ordained Elder in Full Connection” is our terminology for the ordained eqiv. of your parish priest.

I doubt anyone’s avoiding your question out of malace. Unless you’re a trained ancient Greek scholar, that’s a more difficult question that you might think. Even for them, it’s not easy. Rather than plagerize someone else’s work, I found a document called: The Mission and Ministry of the Whole Church Biblical, theological and contemporary perspectives,
published by The Church of England.

I looked it over and I think Chapter Two (starting on page 25 of the RTF document) answers your question without quoting “ramblings from The Church Fathers” <LOL>.

Pastor Brad!!! I want to hear from ANYBODY brave enough to answer me!!! You don’t have to be Roman Catholic. A United Methodist elder is just fine!!! Will you please answer me?

I’ve been asking this question, repeatedly. No one answers: “What does the Bible say about SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS for those in ordained Church ministry?”

Paul wrote the Pastoral Letters to Timothy & Titus. Paul referenced the marital status of the apostles, in First Corinthians, Chapter 9, verse 5.

But I maintain these SPECIFIC verses are not being heeded by the Roman Catholic Church and those Eastern rite churches that are in communion WITH Rome. Your thoughts?

Please no miles of references echoing ramblings by “Church Fathers”. Just the Bible. What does the Bible say about who is qualified to be in ordained Church ministry? In advance, thank you!!!

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 4:46 PM (EDT):

This is not the middle ages. None of us are forced to enter the “secular” priesthood or to enter Religious Life as a brother, sister, nun or priest. We enter voluntarily of our own free will.

I did not see the GMA interview, but I imagine his comments were probably in the context of if you feel called by God to be a priest, then the Roman Catholic Church requires you to be celibate or chaste. If his comment was along those lines, it’s currently accurate enough except that he did have another option—NOT TO ENTER THE SECULAR OR RELIGIOUS PRIESTHOOD. He’s got a book to sell and he also, I imagine, has gotten all righteous, even though he’s the one who broke his promises.

As mentioned in this forum, celibacy and chastity are not dogma, they are disciplines. But, until the Curia sees fit to stop living in fear of how the conservative lay people and traditionalists will respond, it is part of the “package”.

Knowing my spirituality, I would have still entered my Religious community and taken my vows—all of them including chastity—had the Church allowed married priests (something I personally hope will come someday).

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Scott W. on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 4:03 PM (EDT):

He spouted more than once that the Church “forces” priests to be celibate….

He’s right! Just the other day I saw six Swiss guards kick open my neighbor’s door, drag him out and stuff him into a van. When I asked what was happening, they said they decided he was going to be a priest whether he liked it or not, and of course that he was going to be celibate whether he like it or not.

Ok, that didn’t really happen, but as you can see, no one is forced to be a priest and therefore, no one is forced to be celibate. You can either hack it, or you can’t. If you can’t, get out. Nothing personal. Just stop wasting both our time and yours.

Posted by C. Capi on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 1:21 PM (EDT):

Did anyone see this man on GMA this morning? He spouted more than once that the Church “forces” priests to be celibate…. as is stated by many on this forum, of course it is a choice that *he* made when he was ordained. Not as if it was a surprise after the fact. “Oh, I have to be CELIBATE?? That’s SO not my thing, so I’ll just submit to temptation and have an affair with a divorced woman, makes things so much easier…”

Really? It’s not enough that he broke the vows he made, he has to trash the Church for even keeping the rules which Christ established and he CHOSE to follow?

*And for those who say he’s good looking, I honestly don’t think he is at all. :-/

Thank you! Thank you, Fr. George! Even though your comment in response to Fr. Peter was way long, everybody should read it and print it out for study and I mean that!

As a pastor outside of your communion, it is refreshing to see comments by an intellectually and academically honest Catholic priest, especially on here: a discussion board linked to a conservative Catholic magazine.

Pastor Brad

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 2:19 AM (EDT):

I know the previous post was VERY lengthy, but I think it’s important in overcoming misconceptions. When talking about religious traditions not our own, it is often too easy to misinterpet the other’s beliefs and teachings or to see the other’s traditions and beliefs through our own biased “lens”. Various Protestant communions do this in talking about Catholicism, but I believe—really believe—it’s important to build understanding within context. Usually the misunderstanding develops because it’s what we were taught or because we accept certain statements about the other faith group made, at times, by religious authorities in our own tradition who may, themselves, without malice may not have a correct understanding or who may be blurring the others beleifs based on their own biases.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Father Robert George on Tuesday, Jan, 4, 2011 2:12 AM (EDT):

**To Everyone, Please excuse the length of this post, I am quoting an academic text, a papal Encyclical, an Anglican Response and documents from The U.S. Confernce of Catholic Bishops, in this post.**

Father Peter,

This evening I was speaking with an Episcopal Clergy colleague who reminded me that in response to Leo XXX’‘s Encyclical Apostolicae curae(1897), which you referenced above, when taking issue with my comment that there was “persuasive” argument for the validity of Anglican/Episcopal orders, the Archbishops of England (Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1896-1902 and William Maclagan, Archbishop of York, 1891-1908) prepared their Saepius Officio (i.e., “Official Answer”) As Primary Bishop in the Anglican Communion, Archbishop Temple had the authority to prepare such an official response.)

First, to put the Saepius Officio in context, let me quote from a scholar.

As The Reverend Dr. Brian Douglas, PhD. states: Leo XIII in pronouncing Anglican order to be invalid did so on the basis of an argument that the sacerdotal function of priests in relation to the Eucharist was the central aspect of priesthood. He argued that the Anglican Ordinals did not express this essential sacerdotal function correctly in both form and matter and so he concluded that both Anglican Orders and Anglican Eucharistic liturgies are defective. Leo stated in relation to the Anglican Ordinal that “in the whole Ordinal not only is there no clear mention of the sacrifice, of consecration, of the priesthood (sacerdotium), and of the power of consecrating and offering sacrifice but, as we have just stated, every trace of these things which had been in such prayers of the Catholic rite as they had not entirely rejected, was deliberately removed and struck out” (Leo XIII, 1896: 7, Online). Leo’s argument depended on what he saw as a deliberate Anglican intention in the construction of Ordinals to delete any material which referred to the sacerdotal function of priests in the Eucharist. For him this meant that the Anglican Orders and Eucharists were invalid and so he concluded that “we pronounce and declare that ordinations carried out according to the Anglican rite have been, and are, absolutely null and utterly void” (Leo XIII, 1896: 8, Online).

So, there, we have the context in which the Archbishops of England (Frederick Temple, Archbishop of Canterbury, 1896-1902 and William Maclagan, Archbishop of York, 1891-1908) prepared their Saepius Officio (i.e., “Official Answer”)

To quote:
“ … we make provision with the greatest reverence for the consecration of the holy Eucharist and commit it only to properly ordained Priests and to not other ministers of the Church. Further we truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic sacrifice and do not believe it to be a ‘nude commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross’ an opinion which seems to be attributed to us by the quotation made at the Council [of Trent]. But we think it sufficient in the Liturgy which we use in celebrating the holy Eucharist – while lifting up our hearts to the Lord, and when now consecrating the gifts already offered that they may become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, - to signify the sacrifice which is offered at that point of the service in such terms as these. We continue a perpetual memory of the precious death of Christ, who is our Advocate with the Father, and the propitiation for our sins, according to His precept, until His coming again. For first we offer the sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the sacrifice of the cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord’s Passion for all the whole Church, and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the people has necessarily to take its part with the Priest, we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic Sacrifice.” (Archbishops of England, 1897: 5, Online)

These were the two most powerful Churchmen in The Anglican Communion responding directly, with what they believed and taught (and from the official position of Anglican Eucharistic Theology).

The Dr. Brian Douglas continues:

The Archbishops are in this passage from Saepius Officio arguing for a realist view of both presence and sacrifice in the Eucharist. They deny that the Eucharist is merely a remembering of the sacrifice of the cross in the sense that it is brought to mind in the Eucharist by the communicant. Instead they link the signs of the Eucharist with the signified sacrifice of Christ in a realist manner. The gifts of bread and wine are said ‘to become to us’ Christ’s body and blood and the sacrifice which is offered in the Eucharist by the priest is a continuation of the sacrifice of the cross, whereby the sacrifice of Christ on the cross is ‘pleaded’ and ‘represented’ before God in the Eucharist. The language used here suggests that in the Archbishops’ view the nature of the presence and the sacrifice of Christ in the Eucharist is not a repetition or an addition to the sacrifice of the cross. Rather they argue that it is a ‘perpetual memory’ whereby Christ’s body and blood becomes present through the signs of bread and wine and the once and for all sacrifice is pleaded and represented to the Father in the Eucharist. This is clearly moderate realism that is being advocated by the Archbishops. They do not shrink from saying that Christ’s body and blood is present in the Eucharist or from saying that there is eucharistic sacrifice. Eucharistic presence and sacrifice are however distinguished from historic presence and sacrifice by means of the moderate realism they present in their eucharistic theology.

I might mention that more contemporary dialog show consensus on these issues. The Anglican-Roman Catholic Consultation USA, while noting differences and ecclesiastical issues which currently bar recognized inter-communion, do note major areas of agreement, which counter issues raised by Leo XIII’s encyclical.

We have made a careful study of the Documents of the Second Vatican Council, the Lambeth Conference Report of 1958, the 1949 Statement of Faith and Order of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the USA and other statements of the contemporary position of both our Churches. From these statements, it is clear to us that the findings of modern biblical, theological and liturgical studies have transcended many of the polemical formulations of an earlier period.

We believe that it is of utmost importance for the clergy and laity of our two Churches to acknowledge their substantial identity in this area of Eucharistic doctrine, and to build upon it as they go forward in dialogue. Whatever doctrinal disagreements may remain between our Churches, the understanding of the sacrificial nature of the Eucharist is not among them.

Below is an effort to sum up the consensus at which we have arrived.

The Church is the Body of Christ and is built up by the Word through the Eucharist.

Baptism is the entrance into the eucharistic community. In the Holy Eucharist Christians are united with Christ as the fulfillment and perfection of their baptismal union with him.

In the Lord’s Supper we participate at the same time in Christ’s death, resurrection, and ascension; the Christian community is thus transformed in grace and the pledge of future glory is given to us.

Our communion with Christ in the Holy Eucharist is also communion with one another. Such union is achieved through the Holy Spirit.

Christian people participating in Christ’s priesthood through baptism and confirmation are meant to be a living sacrifice to God. That sacrifice finds its fullest expression in the eucharistic offering of the priesthood of the people of God. Such sacramental offering of the whole people is made possible through the special action of the ministerial priest, who is empowered by his ordination to make present Christ’s sacrifice for his people.

The Sacrifice of the Holy Eucharist is not just the sacrifice of the cross but the sacrifice of Christ’s whole life of obedience to the Father which culminated in his death on the cross and his glorious resurrection. We offer nothing we have not first received; because of our incorporation into Christ at baptism, he offers us in himself to the Father.

Following are pertinent passages from the documents upon which the above statement is based.

From Vatican Council II

1. What has revealed the love of God among us is that the only begotten Son of God has been sent by the Father into the world, so that, being made man, the Son might by His redemption of the entire human race give new life to it and unify it (cf. 1 Jn. 4:9; Col. 1:18-20; Jn. 11:52). Before offering Himself up as a spotless victim upon the altar of the cross, he prayed to His Father for those who believe; “That all may be one even as thou, Father, in me, and I in thee; that they also may be one in us, that the world may believe that thou hast sent me” (Jn. 17:21). In His Church He instituted the wonderful sacrament of the Eucharist by which the unity of the Church is both signified and brought about. He gave His followers a new commandment of mutual love (cf. Jn. 13:3tß), and promised the Spirit, their Advocate (cf. Jn. 16:7), who, as Lord and life-giver, would abide with them forever. (Decree on Ecumenism, par. 2)

2. In the human nature which He united to Himself, the Son of God redeemed man and transformed him into a new creation (cf. Gal. 6:15; 2 Cor. 5:17) by overcoming death through His own death and resurrection. By communicating His Spirit to His brothers, called together from all peoples, Christ made them mystically into His own body.

3. In that body, the life of Christ is poured into the believers, who, through the sacraments, are united in a hidden and real way to Christ who suffered and was glorified. Through baptism we are formed in the likeness of Christ: “For in one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor. 12:13). In this sacred rite, a union with Christ’s death and resurrection is both symbolized and brought about: “For we were buried with him by means of Baptism into death.” And if “we have been united with him in the likeness of his death, we shall be so in the likeness of his resurrection also” (Rom. 6:4-5). (Constitution On The Church, par. 7)

4. At the Last Supper, on the night when He was betrayed, our Savior instituted the Eucharistic Sacrifice of His Body and Blood. He did this in order to perpetuate the sacrifice of the Cross throughout the centuries until He should come again, and so to entrust to His beloved spouse, the Church, a memorial of His death and resurrection: a sacrament of love, a sign of unity, a bond of charity, a paschal banquet in which Christ is consumed, the mind is filled with grace, and a pledge of future glory is given to us. (Constitution On The Sacred Liturgy, par. 47)

5. Truly partaking of the body of the Lord in the breaking of the Eucharistic bread, we are taken up into communion with Him and with one another. “Because the bread is one, we though many, are one body, all of us who partake of the one bread” (1 Cor. 10:17). In this way all of us are made members of His body (cf. 1 Cor. 12:27), “but severally members one of another” (Rom. 12:5). (Constitution On The Church, par. 7)

6. As all the members of the human body, though they are many, form one body, so also are the faithful in Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 12:12). Also, in the building up of Christ’s body there is a flourishing variety of members and functions. There is only one Spirit who, according to His own richness and the needs of the ministries, distributes His different gifts for the welfare of the Church (cf. 1 Cor. 12:1-11). Among these gifts stands out the grace given to the apostles. To their authority, the Spirit Himself subjected even those who were endowed with charisms (cf. 1 Cor. its). Giving the body unity through Himself and through His power and through the internal cohesion of its members, this same Spirit produces and urges love among the believers. Consequently, if one member suffers anything, all the members suffer it too, and, if one member is honored, all the members rejoice together (cf. 1 Cor. 12:26). (Constitution On The Church, par. 7)

7. Christ the Lord, High Priest taken from among men (cf. Heb. 5:1-5), “made a kingdom and priests to God his Father” (Apoc. 1:6; cf. 5:9-10) out of this new people. The baptized, by regeneration and the anointing of the Holy Spirit, are consecrated into a spiritual house and a holy priesthood. Thus through all those works befitting Christian men they can offer spiritual sacrifices and proclaim the power of Him who has called them out of darkness into His marvelous light (cf. 1 Pet 2:4-10). Therefore all the disciples of Christ, persevering in prayer and praising God (cf. Acts 2:142-G.7), should present themselves as living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God (cf. Rom. 12:1). Everywhere on earth they must bear witness to Christ and give an answer to those who seek an account of that hope of eternal life which is in them (cf. 1 Pet. 3:15). (same, par. 10)

8. Though they differ from one another in essence and not only in degree, the common priesthood of the faithful and the ministerial or hierarchial priesthood are nonetheless interrelated. Each of them in its own special way is a participation in the one priesthood of Christ. The ministerial priest, by the sacred power he enjoys, molds and rules the priestly people. Acting in the person of Christ, he brings about the Eucharistic Sacrifice, and offers it to God in the name of all the people. For their part, the faithful join in the offering of the Eucharist by virtue of their royal priesthood. They likewise exercise that priesthood by receiving the sacraments, by prayer and thanksgiving, by the witness of a holy life, and by self-denial and active charity. (same, par. 10)

From 1949 Statement of Faith and Order of the Episcopal Church

9. The fundamental Christian ministry is the ministry of Christ. There is no Christian priesthood or ministry apart from His. His priestly and ministerial function is to reconcile the world to God in and through Himself, by His Incarnation and by His “one sacrifice once offered” and by the gift of the Holy Spirit, delivering men from the power of sin and death.

10. The Church as the Body of Christ, sharing His life, has a ministerial function derived from that of Christ. In this function every member has his place and share according to his different capabilities and calling. The Church is set before us in the New Testament as a body of believers having within it, as its recognized focus of unity, of teaching and of authority, the Apostolate, which owed its origin to the action of the Lord Himself. There was not first an Apostolate which gathered a body of believers about itself; nor was there a completely structureless collection of believers which gave authority to the Apostles to speak and act on its behalf. From the first there was the fellowship of believers finding its unity in the Twelve. Thus the New Testament bears witness to the principle of a distinctive ministry, as an original element, but not the sole constitutive element, in the life of the Church. (section D. 1)

From Vatican Council II

11. It is through the sacraments and the exercise of the virtues that the sacred nature and organic structure of the priestly community is brought into operation. Incorporated into the Church through baptism, the faithful are consecrated by the baptismal character to the exercise of the cult of the Christian religion. Reborn as sons of God, they must confess before men the faith which they have received from God through the Church. Bound more intimately to the Church by the sacrament of confirmation, they are endowed by the Holy Spirit with special strength. Hence they are more strictly obliged to spread and defend the faith both by word and by deed as true witnesses of Christ.

12. Taking part in the Eucharistic Sacrifice, which is the fount and apex of the whole Christian life, they offer the divine Victim to God, and offer themselves along with It. Thus, both by the act of oblation and through holy communion, all perform their proper part in this liturgical service, not, indeed, all in the same way but each in that way which is appropriate to himself. Strengthened anew at the holy table by the Body of Christ, they manifest in a practical way that unity of God’s People which is suitably signified and wondrously brought about by this most awesome sacrament. (Constitution On The Church, par. 11)

From The Lambeth conference 1958

13. It is commonly acknowledged that what Christ accomplished on the cross can properly be described as a sacrifice. It is enough to recall the two sacrificial sayings of our Lord Himself, “My life a ransom for many” and “This is my blood of the covenant which is shed for many” and the phrases in the Epistle to the Hebrews (10.10, 12) “The offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all”, and “when Christ had offered for all time a single sacrifice for sins, he sat down at the right hand of God.”

14. The sacrifice is an act of willing obedience, “Lo, I am come to do thy will, O God” (Hebrews 10.7; Phil. 2.8), and inasmuch as Christ is not only perfect and representative man but also the eternal Son of God, this act of will is not only the one perfect response of humanity to the will of God but also it is the will of God going out to man in yearning love. The new man, the Adam who is Christ, fulfils in the Cross the thanksgiving of man to God. In Christ the fullness of God giving himself to man meets with the fullness of man offering himself to God.

15. The sacrifice of Christ as the offering of willing obedience included not only his death on the Cross but all that contributed to it, of which it was the culmination. The finished work of Calvary is consummated in the resurrection and ascension.

16. This sacrifice is once and for all, but though it cannot be repeated, it is not merely a past fact; it is not only an event in history, but the revelation of eternal truth. He is the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world, now seated at the right hand of God after the power of an endless life. The fact revealed in time past has to be continually translated into the present by the operation of the Spirit. “He will take what is mine and declare it to you” (John 16.14).

17. Christ’s sacrificial work on the Cross was for us; he died just as our Redeemer. He who once died and is now alive for ever more is also in us; he dwells in our hearts by faith. And in virtue of this union, we are now identified with him both in his death and passion, and in his resurrection life and glory, There is but one Body, of which he is the Head and we are members; and we are made one with each other because we are one in Him.

18. In our baptism we were united with him by the likeness of his death (Rom. 6.5) and in the Eucharist we abide in him as we eat his Body and drink his Blood (John 6.5 6). So we come to the Father in and through Jesus our great High Priest. We have nothing to offer that we have not first received, but we offer our praise and thanksgiving for Christ’s sacrifice for us and so present it again, and ourselves in him, before the Father. We are partakers of the sacrifice of Christ (1 Cor. 10.16), and this is shown forth by our sacrifice of praise to God continually through Christ (Heb. 13.15), and by our life of service and suffering for his sake in the world (Phil. 3.9, 10). We ourselves, incorporate in the mystical body of Christ, are the sacrifice we offer. Christ with us offers us in himself to God. (section 2.83-8L)

In 1994, The Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States jointly published its “Five Affirmations on the Eucharist as Sacrifice. It states:t the forty-first meeting of the Anglican-Roman Catholic Dialogue in the United States of America (ARC/USA), on January 6, 1994, having in mind the significant agreement on the eucharist represented by The Final Report of the Anglican Roman Catholic International Commission and responding to the request in the Vatican Response to the ARCIC I Final Report for clarification, we wish as the official representatives of our two Churches in the United States to make together the following affirmations:

1. We affirm that in the eucharist the Church, doing what Christ commanded his apostles to do at the Last Supper, makes present the sacrifice of Calvary. We understand this to mean that when the Church is gathered in worship, it is empowered by the Holy Spirit to make Christ present and to receive all the benefits of his sacrifice.
2. We affirm that God has given the eucharist to the Churches a means through which all the atoning work of Christ on the cross is proclaimed and made present with all its effects in the life of the Church. His work includes ‘that perfect redemption, propitiation, and satisfaction, for all the sins of the whole world’ (Cf. Art. 31 BCP [USA], p. 874). Thus the propitiatory effect of Christ’s one sacrifice applies in the eucharistic celebration to both the living and the dead, including a particular dead person.
3. We affirm that Christ in the eucharist makes himself present sacramentally and truly when under the species of bread and wine these earthy realities are changed into the reality of his body and blood. In English the terms substance, substantial, and substantially have such physical and material overtones that we, adhering to The Final Report, have substituted the word truly for the word substantially in the clarification request by the Vatican Response. However, we affirm the reality of the change by consecration as being independent of the subjective disposition of the worshipers.
4. Both our Churches affirm that after the eucharistic celebration the body and blood of Christ may be reserved for the communion of the sick, ‘or of others who for weighty cause could not be present at the celebration’ (BCP, pp. 408-409). Although the American Book of Common Prayer directs that any consecrated bread and wine not reserved for this purpose should be consumed at the end of the service, American Episcopalians recognize that many of their own Church members practice the adoration of Christ in the reserved sacrament. We acknowledge this practice as an extension of the worship of Jesus Christ present at the eucharistic celebration.
5. We affirm that only a validly ordained priest can be the minister who, in the person of Christ, brings into being the sacrament of the eucharist and offers sacramentally the redemptive sacrifice of Christ which God offers us.

As the Vatican Response had already recorded the notable progress toward consensus represented by The Final Report in the respect of eucharistic doctrine, in the light of these five affirmations ARC/USA records its conclusions that the eucharist as sacrifice is not an issue that divides our two Churches.

And, the current ECUSA website speaks clearly about the Sacrifice of The Ecucharist: Q: Why is the Eucharist called a sacrifice?
A: Because the Eucharist, the Church’s sacrifice of praise and thanksgiving, is the way by which the sacrifice of Christ is made present, and in which he unites us to his one offering of himself.

Given the historic response to Leo XIII’s Encyclical as well as the more recent developments, only some of which are listed above, I do believe that my Professors’ comments about “persusive arguments for the validity of Anglican / Episcopal Orders exist, in spite of the Leo XIII’s 1897 Encyclical.

You and I both know, from our training, that there have been times throughout history when various Popes have issued Encyclicals which have been later succeeded by either Synods or other Encyclicals based on developing understanding.

In Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Kathy16670 on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 9:47 PM (EDT):

A few posts up, Mark said

“So all those Episcopalians would be receiving Christ as I do at a Catholic Mass?
I had never heard that before.
So…wouldn’t that be a *good*? (to play a perverse sort of devil’s advocate)...all those people receiving Christ?”

I scrolled through the answers, but didn’t see this directly answered.

My guess would NO, it’s not a good thing at all. For the very same reasons Non Catholics are not allowed to receive the Eucharist at Mass.

“he who eats and drinks unworthily eats and drinks his own condemnation.”

For those who have not gone to confession (and so have mortal sin on their soul,) and cannot discern the real presence in the Eucharist they are partaking of, are causing damage to their souls.

So…to those better qualified to answer than I, did I get it right?

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 9:13 PM (EDT):

To Father(s) Peter Stravinskas and Robert George-

What does the Bible say? Professors, whether Catholic, Episcopalian or otherwise, just give opinion. What does God’s Word say?

Do they teach the Sacred Scriptures in the seminary these days? Did they EVER teach Sacred Scriptures in seminaries? Is it only the Church Fathers that are studied, and the whims of the pope of the day that pew people heed?

Posted by Father Robert George on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 8:47 PM (EDT):

Pardon - The note above was posted by me, not Father Peter, to whom I was responding. I had put his name in the wrong blank.

I don’t remember whether that aspect (removal of any reference to the sacrificing priesthood) was even mentioned by either of my profs, either the Episcopalian clergyman or the Catholic professor.

Your brother in Christ,

Father Robert George

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 7:29 PM (EDT):

Maureen-
You are correct, in pointing out there is an exception for divorce, being unrepentant & repeated adultry. The circumstances about her divorce are unknown. It’s not likely that it would matter to those involved, however.

Somewhere in this post, it was mentioned the father of her 5 year old child is unknown; speculation is it MAY be Fr. Cutie, based on the period of time they were in a relationship.

That’s not rare. There was a movie about a Fr. Gilmore, who fathered two daughters that are now late teens or early twenties. He was a “deadbeat Father=daddy” too, who abandoned the mother of his girls when they were babies, aided by his bishop that said of him, “Charismatic young priests are so hard to come by…” His diocese allowed Fr. Gilmore to choose between marrying the mother of his girls & leaving the priesthood, or remaining a priest. Gilmore chose to remain a priest.

As is tradition for matters like this, the diocese paid for the priest’s little family to be moved out of the area, and away from him. What got Fr. Gilmore removed entirely was when he got yet another woman pregnant. His daughters, called “The Gilmore Girls” want to work to help other children of Roman Catholic priests seek justice, when they grow up.

Remember Fr. Marcial Maciel? Now even the boys on Catholic Answers say he was almost pathological, and how he “fooled” Pope John Paul II, etc. But it’s really not that rare for priests to live two lives, and to ruin the lives of others - the women they sexually exploit and the children they father - either demanding be aborted (as is so common in Africa) or abandon after birth, like here in the US and Europe.

I feel badly for all the women that are exploited by priests for sex too. The worst case I heard of was the Mother Superior that went to JPII several years ago, upset because priests in her area of Africa were demanding sex from her nuns, in exchange for supplies in which to live. Priests see the nuns there as safe sex partners, as they are AIDS-free.

JPII did nothing about it, even after the Mother Superior reported to him one priest empregnated one of her nuns, he demanded the nun get an abortion, she did. She died in a botched procedure, and HE presided at her funeral. JPII knew all about this. To this day, nothing changed. I feel sorry for those women too.

The sad thing is that my guess is Fr. Cutie will NOT leave his bride. He would be like his new “mommy”. Too many priests that do NOT have a “gift” of celibacy, and that lead two lives, are prevented from growing up into MEN. They, like Fr. Gilmore and Fr. Cutie (before he was outed on the beach w/ her) are kept in a Man-Boy state, emotionally, not having to be responsible for their actions. They never grew up. They don’t have to. When they stray, they call it a “lapse” - not adultry. Just a “lapse”.

Pew people almost always blame the woman. I read in the newspaper about an emotionally disturbd woman exploited for sex by a California priest. Even in that case, parishioners say, “Oh, poor father. He was so immature. He was ‘like a child’ in being so vulnerable. She should have known better! I blame her!”

When this happened, April 2006, “Father” was 45 years old, hardly a child. The woman was 30, and emotionally, like a vulnerable teenager. For details of the story, check out the San Jose Mercury News, April 2006, and the name Fr. Randy Benas.

The San Jose Mercury ran a front page article after it happened. The diocese did what it does best: stayed quiet, hoping the news would die down. It did. Even Benas’ parishioners have no idea whatever happened after the diocese ‘investigation’ to this day - “Transparency” Cardinal Levada speaks about it a joke. It’s all cover-ups, and even now.

Allow priests to marry. The Bible calls for a married priesthood, and it is in Tradition. St. Patrick was the son of a Roman Catholic deacon and the grandson of a Roman Catholic priest. If the church ever expects to be trusted, we need MEN as leaders, not pampered Man-Boys.

Posted by Maureen on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 6:45 PM (EDT):

Re: divorced woman, Jesus also admitted a fairly prominent exception.

We don’t know anything about her previous marriage, her husband, or whether anything had gone on that made the marriage defective from the start. But obviously Cutie had no confidence in canon law and the marriage Rota, or he just didn’t think sacrificial love and waiting had any place in his life.

I feel sorry for her. She was too desperate to pick a real man, and got stuck with this jerk. No doubt he’ll leave her, too.

You wrote, “Cradle Catholic, The Church has NEVER gained all her wisdom from Scripture alone. However, the Church does and always has had clear criteria for priestly ordination, which incorporate ALL of Paul’s points, in addition to many others…”

Cradle’s reply:
First, THANK YOU SO MUCH for being willing to engage in a discussion about celibacy. It’s refreshing for a priest to take the time to read this article, and to post a comment. Engaging in discussion about this “non-discussible” matter must put you in the top 1% among Catholic clergymen, worldwide! So - kudos to you!! Wow! Impressive!!

Secondly, my comment to your post is:
What are the specific qualifications St. Paul wrote about the ordained ministry? I find them in Timothy, Titus and 1 Corinthians 9:5. Would you agree with me about those verses? I’m speaking of verses specific to the ordained ministry.

Posted by Tamara on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 4:38 PM (EDT):

I think it is easy to judge others and hindsight provides many opportunities to see the error of our ways. Maybe others can learn from his situation and choose more admirable ways of dealing with those types of struggles.

I beg to differ about the “persuasiveness” of any argument for validity of Anglican Orders, as Leo XIII made clear. With the Edwardian Ordinal, the chain/link was broken as the newrite eliminated any reference to a sacrificing priesthood, thus indicating that the “new church” did not believe the Eucharist to have a sacrificial dimension and, therefore, had a defective notion of priesthood as well.

The only possibility for an Anglican to have valid Orders would be if an Orthodox or Old Catholic bishop had been involved in his ordination or consecration. Even that, however, is a very impoverished concept of apostolic succession, which is more than a simple “pipeline.”

Posted by Father Robert George on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 1:43 PM (EDT):

JanComf,

You asked about the validity of the validity of a Eucharist in an Episcopal Church where the service is conducted by a now married Episcopal priest who has become an Episcopalian priest.

From a Roman Catholic perspective, the consecration of the Eucharist is valid, but not legal, if the man was validly ordained as a Roman Catholic priest.

Now, there are those who would argue, outside official R.C. circles, as church historians—including two of my former professors (one Roman Catholic layperson with a PhD. in Church History and one an Episcopalian clergyman with a PhD. in Church History)—that consecration of the Eucharist is valid in any Episcopal / Anglican church because when the Protestant Reformation happened in England (and how it happened, differently from many other countries in Europe) Apostolic Succession was retained. This is NOT the view espoused by our Church, but a fairly persuasive argument can be made regardless of whether our Church agrees with it our not.

I should add that I’ve been very blessed by the dozen priests I’ve gotten to know well in my life. If one is committed to loving the bride of Christ (especially the poor in spirit), celibacy is very possible. I’ve seen it.

Posted by Ryan C on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 3:06 AM (EDT):

Even in the Eastern Churches where there are married priests, celibacy is practiced by some—I believe the bishops are almost always celibate. Celibacy will always be a calling, even if the discipline is not mandated for all. BTW, to those who think are times are particularly bad ones for the priesthood—read about medieval priests or the state of the church in Ireland around the 1500s. The struggle between spirit and flesh is an ongoing one.

A good balanced article by Jimmy.

Posted by Mark on Monday, Jan, 3, 2011 2:27 AM (EDT):

Fr. Stravinskas:

So…the members of an Episcopal parish headed by a former RC priest are receiving Eucharist? The real Body and Blood of Christ? There are a lot of these guys.

So all those Episcopalians would be receiving Christ as I do at a Catholic Mass?

I had never heard that before.

So…wouldn’t that be a *good*? (to play a perverse sort of devil’s advocate)...all those people receiving Christ?

The Church has NEVER gained all her wisdom from Scripture alone. However, the Church does and always has had clear criteria for priestly ordination, which incorporate ALL of Paul’s points, in addition to many otehrs. The problem is that, like marriage, many problems don’t surface until AFTER the fact.

Posted by Hispanic on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 11:23 PM (EDT):

Mr. Akin wrote: “He also may have ..pursued laicization on those grounds, including an appeal to the Holy See to allow him to be released from the obligation of celibacy so that he could marry Buni Canellis in view of the emotional/other attachments and obligations he felt existed between them.”

So that he could marry Buni Canellis? Really. Marry a divorced woman? Mr. Akin, that’s adultery according to Jesus, say three gospels (Matthew 5:32, Mark 10: 2-12 or Luke 16:18).

How is it that you recommend adultery as a solution? What do you recommend as a solution for Buni Canelli’s husband? Also adultery?

Oh, but Ms. Canellis and her “first” husband weren’t married by a Catholic priest. So what. Genesis was written before Canon Law. Do not separate (by “marrying” in the name of God) what God has brought together.

Posted by Frankie on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 10:00 PM (EDT):

Satan’s strategy has always been to divide and conquer.
Now do you understand the vicious attacks on the Church, the priesthood and the family? Souls are at stake. We, the faithful Church Militant, are responsible to pray and fast in reparation for the sins of humanity.
HUMIILITY conquers PRIDE every time.

God be with us all.
Saint Michael the Archangel, protect us.

Posted by JanComf on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 8:16 PM (EDT):

Fr. George:

Thank you for bringing up a point that confuses me greatly.

I know a couple of former RC priests who have been become Episcopal. You say the Eucharist they celebrate is valid but not licit. Becuase of course they don’t “lose” their priestly powers - ever. So are the Eucharists they confect as Episcopal priests in Episcopal services *valid* Eucharists? Are they really the Body and Blood of Christ?

And thanks to Cradle Catholic for bringing up those great Scripture verses from Paul.

Posted by Cradle Catholic on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 6:59 PM (EDT):

I attempted to read ALL the above posts. No where did I see anyone point out what Scripture says about the SPECIFIC qualifications for those in ordained ministry. Not offhand passages for lay people. What are the SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS, PER THE BIBLE, FOR ORDAINED CLERGY?

St. Paul’s letters to Timothy and Titus are called The Pastoral Letters, even to fellow Catholics. Am I wrong about that?

Please correct me, if those are NOT Pastoral Letters, with “pastoral” meaning Paul was outlining what the church should structure should be like, for Timothy in Ephesus and for Titus who was in Crete.

Another of Paul’s writings my fellow Catholics overlook is 1Corinthians 9:5. Catholic apologists do not like that verse, so they dance around it, never failing to redirect the masses (pew people) to OTHER verses, they like better, just to confuse them.

It’s sort of funny. But very sad too. We end up with the Fr. Cuties and, well, let’s face it, we just can’t trust ANY priest anymore, because if they aren’t fooling around sexually with someone, it’s called a “lapse” by the way, they know someone who is & they keep it a secret.
That old “Those that live in Glass Houses” maxim.

The Church in the USA didn’t get to be $2 billion in the hole, for nothing! With that parish in Delaware having to pay a $3 million jury verdict to a survivor, with the diocese portion set at $30 million, the sex lives of priests is going to get REAllY COSTLY and really fast!!

Are pew people willing to dig into their pockets forever, for the priviledge of keeping our heads in the sand about priests having sex lives on the side (lapses), by continuing to ignore St. Paul’s writings, and the REAL Qualifications for the ordained ministry? SPECIFIC QUALIFICATIONS, ANYONE?

A priest could have his priestly faculties held in abeyance but be allowed to function as a deacon. If memory serves me right, this is what John Paul II did with several priests in the Czech Republic: During the Communist era, a bishop had ordained several married men to the priesthood. Afterwards, John Paul gave them the option to return to the lay state or to function merely as deacons. It is important to remember that when one gains one order, he does not lose the previous ones. Thus, every priest/bishop is also a “permanent deacon”!

Yes, because priesthood is forever, even an excommunicated priest may perform priestly functions if the salvation of a soul is at stake. And, yes, normally, though, his action would be illicit even if not necessarily invalid. Invalidity would occur with the Sacraments of Matrimony and Penance (if not needed by someone is extremis)since such a priest would lack faculties from an Ordinary in communion with the Pope. This is the dilemma, of course, in which the Society of St. Pius X finds itself.

Posted by John F. Kennedy on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 1:29 PM (EDT):

Father Robert George wrote “ordination is a one time event that cannot be undone even by The Church.” Once a priest always a priest, that is why he can not become a Deacon as some have suggested. But Deacons are not allowed to marry either without special dispensation.

Additionally if a priest is laicized and then acts like a priest he is acting illicitly, except in certain circumstances and a sacrament may not be recognized by the Church such as weddings.

Posted by Father Robert George on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 2:40 AM (EDT):

Brenda,

You wrote: I think most want to know is about the rule of celibacy itself, the promises that are made, and whether or not priests can be laicized and remain in good standing. So please do not take most of our comments to sit in judgment of Father Cutie, that is God’s area alone—we are just curious about the process.. Rather than cut and paste content from the comment section of Jimmy’s first blog on the topic, I will mention that I answered many of these questions in detail in the comments section of part 1 in his series (link here)

To summarize: “Religious” (those in religious orders or congregations) take vows of obedience, chastity and poverty—plus, in some communities,additional vows unique to the spirituality, mission and gifts of the particular community in which one is professing at the time of our “final” or “perpetual vows”. Secular priests, those who are “diocesan priests” make promises of obedience to the Bishop of the diocese and s promise to live a consecrated life for God (celibacy). These are not vows, but “secular” priests are expected to abide by them. While they are technically different from vows, in a canon law sense, functionally they are the same in the sense that “secular” priests are expected to abide by them for life. Just because they are “promises” made at ordination, instead of vows made at profession, does not mean that they are considered causal or that a priest can disregard them at will.

At present, through his Roman Catholic ordination, Father Curie’s celebration of mass or consecration of The Eucharist is valid but illicit (illegal under Canon Law). The right to exercise public priesthood can be revoked, but ordination is a one time event that cannot be undone even by The Church.

Father Robert George

Posted by Cathy on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 12:52 AM (EDT):

The man, Father Cutie got what he wanted, and now stands to make a profit by writing about his excuses for it. Personally, I won’t be buying the book or his excuses. I know we are all sinners, but when one injures, the appropriate response is to repent and not to insult those who have been injured. The book deal simply seems a way to add insult to injury, keep his profile public, and make a dollar as well.

Posted by Brenda on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 12:32 AM (EDT):

..well, I’m spending way too much time on this issue, but, Mr. Pereda, how can we know what Father Cutie’s motives were? Yes, we can see that he apparently has broken some rules, maybe many, and possibly in a sinful way. But how can we know his motives, that he “wanted his cake and eat it, too?” I just think that as Christians we have to be careful not to assume motives for someone else other than ourselves.

Posted by Vincent Pereda on Sunday, Jan, 2, 2011 12:17 AM (EDT):

I have to admit that I really enjoyed reading this article and totally agreed with Jimmy Akin’s analysis and appropriate course of action to be taken that would be in keeping with the teaching and norms of the Catholic Church. Fr. Cutie I believe took the wrong path and should have sought laicization first and then pursue marriage with the woman he became romantically and intimately involved with. Instead, he wanted to keep some semblance of his priesthood and therefore abandoned the Catholic Church and joined the Episcopal Chuch, where he was gladly accepted as a married priest. He wanted to have his cake and eat it too!!

Posted by Brenda on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 11:26 PM (EDT):

Father Robert, I just want to say that I agree with your sentiment about more or less disecting Father Cutie’s behavior and holding him up for inspection—I was uncomfortable with that myself. What I think most want to know is about the rule of celibacy itself, the promises that are made, and whether or not priests can be laicized and remain in good standing. So please do not take most of our comments to sit in judgement of Father Cutie, that is God’s area alone—we are just curious about the process.., Have a Happy New Year to all!

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 10:23 PM (EDT):

Hello Father Peter, you of course, are correct. I remember taking time to write responses myself—or, I actually think that was in the other thread following Jimmy’s first blog about Cutie.

At least it has given us the opportunity to clear up some differences for folks and to help people better understand The Church’s process.

I haven’t been so active online since the old Catholic Information Network, in pre-Internet days, out of Heartford, CT. using Convene software as I remember and then it became part of an organization, I think, called Ecunet.

Actually, Father George, very little of this thread has dealt directly with Father Cutie. Most of the postings have dealt with questions regarding celibacy, laicization, etc.

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 9:34 PM (EDT):

To All:

I’m wondering why we’re taking so much energy discussing Cutié here (and I include myself in this as well). We know what his situation is with The Church and he’s now the problem of The Episcopal Church who welcomed him, recognized his Catholic ordination and assigned him as Priest-in-Charge of Church of The Resurrection in Biscayne Park, Florida.

In the final analysis, it is for God alone to judge Father Cutié.

In Christ,

Father George

Posted by Brenda on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 8:37 PM (EDT):

Father Peter, I just read your biography online; suffice it to say, I’m going with your version regarding diocesan priests! So, just so I am clear and do not make this error again—Diocesan priests, who do not profess vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, DO make a promise of obedience to their bishops, that promise includes celibacy, AND, the only way a diocesan priest can be laicized (for whatever reason) is to petition his bishop who goes through the pope, before authorization is received, correct?

Posted by Father Robert George on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 8:30 PM (EDT):

Hi Father Peter. It looks like people are asking you the same questions that others asked earlier in this thread and which I answered in detail. It’s good to have another priest posting here.

To All: From my perspective, whether Father Cutié requested Laicization as required by Canon Law is, at this juncture, a moot point for he is no longer a member of our Church. Technically, he ex communicated himself by the act of joining a Protestant faith community - whether the Church ex communicated him formally or not. Clearly by being granted ordained status in The Episcopal Church USA, part of the worldwide Anglican communion, he further compounded his ex communication. That effectively cuts him off from the grace received in the sacraments in our Church and the traditional teaching was that it also cuts him off from God’s grace. Today, we see it more in terms of cutting himself off from sacramental participation in our Church, but I doubt he cares about that.
This does not mean, as far as I’m concerned, that God does not love Father Cutié and will not work in his heart to bring him closer to God and salvation through Jesus Christ, if Cutié is willing to listen.

I agree wholeheartedly with Pastor Brad that, if I was a Protestant, I would not want him as a leader in my congregation, because if he broke oath once, he’s likely to do it again. It would take a great deal of time, outside of clerical state, where I would have to see true fruits of repentance before I would trust him again.

Perhaps the confusion comes from the fact that a diocesan priest’s request for laicization goes to the Pope THROUGH his Ordinary.

Posted by Brenda on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 6:16 PM (EDT):

Father Peter, maybe the book I was reading written in the 1980s that was titled, “Answers to Catholic Questions” was mistaken then. It said that only priests from religious orders take a vow of chastity (includes celibacy) to the Pope, that they indeed have to appeal to the Pope to be released from their vow. But that Diocesan priests need only appeal to their ordinary, or bishop.

It is not within the competence of a bishop either to dispense from the obligation of celibacy or to “laicize” a priest. That is the sole prerogative of the Pope, acting through the proper Roman dicastery.

Posted by bearing on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 4:15 PM (EDT):

“Tell me how can the glorified body of Christ end up looking like a wafer.”

I hear that it’s sort of like how God Himself can end up looking like a carpenter from Nazareth. Pretty hard to believe, I know.

Posted by Brenda on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 3:55 PM (EDT):

Yes, Fr. Peter, thank you for that confirmation about diocesan or secular priests not professing vows, but making a promise of obedience to their bishops. I believe it is also well within the bishop’s authority to release a priest from celebacy and to therefore laicize him, IF either the priest requests it, or the priest has behaved in a way that warrants the bishop laicizing him. However, I know that not all priests who request to be laicized are permitted. Then in keeping with their promise of Obedience, they must deal with it. I’m guessing Fr. Cutie either did not request laicization, or if he did, was refused… I don’t know, did Jimmy cover that?

Posted by Jbe on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 3:48 PM (EDT):

Could the Register cover the the Church’s view of the sins of Maciel? It is hard to read this article seriously coming from the paper that was started by a man whom the Pope called “devoid of religion” and knowing that this same paper avoided that topic of priestly sins for their own founder. I think it is very hypocritical to cover Fr. Cutie’s sins and not Maciels. I think a thorough and honest review of canon law and church teaching on Maciel’s abuse of the priesthood might help many folks live in reality of this founder and pray for his soul. He was a public figure that led many astray and good Catholic press should cover this story fairly and honestly just like you cover the Fr. Cutie story. Maciel also plagiarized, committed acts of pedophilia, and conned the Vatican and thousands of innocent souls using them to be a front for his fake holiness. Why does Maciel get a pass and even get called a “flawed founder” and Fr. Cutie’s sexual sin get covered as “gravely sinful”? Maciel was protected his whole life and lived a lie and now even in his death this paper protects him while speaking on other priest’s sins. I think it is wrong.

Posted by Joanne S. on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 2:52 PM (EDT):

Another thing while I’m here: thank you, Father Peter Stravinskas, for sharing your experience that Protestant-to-Catholic conversions are usually due to doctrinal issues whereas Catholic-to-Protestant conversions are usually traced to moral issues. I found that a most interesting statement borne out in my own experience also.

Just yesterday I met a former Catholic who says he is now non-denominational. When I asked him why he left the Catholic Church, he said he was angry that a priest allegedly refused to preside over his grandmother’s funeral because she had not attended his church. He then became a Baptist, but left that church as well over some other “offense” by one of its ministers. While neither of these reasons strikes me as issues of morality, it did touch on something I see repeatedly: pride. When we don’t get our own way, we want to take our football and go home.

It’s so easy to get upset with the human beings in the church who may offend us in some way and use that to leave the RC church, but they don’t seem to realize they are also leaving the One who founded that church, the sacraments, etc. If their feelings were legitimate or they didn’t feel they could work with a pastor, why not simply attend another parish? Often, they can’t admit they have unstated reasons that reflect badly on themselves and their own sins.

In Fr. Cutie’s case, what will happen if he meets another woman in the Episcopal church who he finds more attractive than the woman he is living with? Like Henry VIII, after you reject your vows once, it’s easy to do it all again. As one other poster said, how can the Episcopal church trust this guy with its female congragents?

You are correct that secular priests (more correct than “diocesan” since there are secular clergy who are not diocesan) do not profess vows. The promise of obedience is to the Ordinary; the promise of celibacy is to God, in the presence of the Ordinary, representing the Church. Since a Catholic priest is validly ordained, he is always a validly ordained priest, which he does not lose by joining a heretical or schismatic body.

Joanne,

The basic principle for bodies that have married priests is that a married man may be ordained but an ordained man may never marry. So, “switch-hitting” wouldn’t work!

LRoy,

I’m aghast at the inanity of your comments. Sorry to be so blunt, but enough is enough!

Posted by LRoy on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 2:35 PM (EDT):

I’ve got to admit, he is very handsome. Too bad he had to commit this great sin because looks only count for so many points and may not be enough to save his soul.

And what about the woman, technically she’s still married to her first husband (Episcopalians have no annulment), so she’s committing adultery, right?

So now we have two people who are in grave sin. Is it better than him molesting little boys for years? Probably, but only to a point.

What a mess. Even God Himself would scratch his head over this one.

Posted by Joanne S. on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 2:33 PM (EDT):

I have a question for one of the priests on this thread: can a priest in the Latin rite, which requires celibacy, switch to another rite which does not? And, if so, can he then marry after switching?

I’m talking here about rites within the Catholic church in union with the Holy Father.

My gut tells me such a switch in order to marry would probably not be allowed, but since another poster wondered on this thread if a priest could go backwards and become a permanent deacon to marry, it made me wonder if switching rites would be a possibility.

Thanks in advance.

Posted by Brenda on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 2:31 PM (EDT):

K.C. Thomas, Diocesan priests do not make vows, like religious priests do, they make a promise to the bishop, who has the authority to release them from their promise. But there is no indication that Fr. Cutie even sought permission to be laicized. So I do believe, he is not in a valid marriage, nor a valid priesthood going over to the Episcopalian denomination.

Posted by Kathy16670 on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 12:55 PM (EDT):

“The will of the Church finds its ultimate motivation in the link between celibacy and Sacred Ordination, which configures the priest to Jesus Christ the Head and Spouse of the Church. The Church as the Spouse of Jesus Christ wishes to be loved by the priest in the total and exclusive manner in which Jesus Christ her Head and Spouse loved her…”

John Paul II,
Pastores dabo vobis,
In n. 29, 1992,

Posted by Deacon Matt on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 12:49 PM (EDT):

Pastor Brad,
Thank you for your comments. God has truly blessed you for He has removed from you your stony heart and given you a natural heart. Clearly, the Episcopal Church is venturing down a path that is most likely, and prayerfully not, going to wind up disappointing many people. We are innocent of those things which people hold in secret in their hearts and minds. But, when those things are evident by one’s actions, there could be trouble. Also, the Catholic Church says that we will never know the extent of the activity of God in other churches, but we know that He is definitely there. We should never minimize how Almighty God touches the lives of other Christians. St Paul says to judge all things, hold onto those which are good, and throw out the rest. If people speak with hate, throw it out. We have a lot to do to build up the Body of Christ which can be done only with Love and Truth. God’s Love and Truth. I get the impression that you know and feel the same. Finally, there are those who don’t understand the purpose of celibacy and remaining chaste. When I was ordained, I freely accepted to be celibate and remain chaste. I know what is entailed. There are times when I need to walk away from potential problems. It is what we all need to do when it comes to sin… walk away! Living a celibate and chaste life is a willing sacrifice I make to God. Besides the fact that we cannot serve two masters, I am giving all that I am to God, fully, and without reservation. As Christ gave us His life, isn’t it the least I can do, but to give Him mine. The Catholic Church is asking the same of all those who are priests. To all Christians I ask you to please pray for all those who give their lives to God, through Jesus Christ. Particularly those who give up so much. God bless you Pastor Brad, and thanks.

Posted by Aaron on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 12:18 PM (EDT):

While I differ greatly with Pastor Brad on matters Sacramental and theological, he is sooo right on this issue. Why the woman would consent to marry him (much less consent to have a relationship with him) is beyond me. Why the Episcopalians would him is beyond me. He broke his oath to chastity, he violated his vow of celibacy (first by getting seriously involved with a woman who could potentially be his wife, and now because he hasn’t had his vow of celibacy lifted), and while he continued this relationship, he lied to his parish, his superiors, and his listeners (not to mention Christ, whom he is a stand-in for during Holy Mass). In addition, he jumped ship to the Episcopalians because then he could be a priest and be married…he could have his cake and eat it too. Is this the sort of man a woman wants as a) a husband and b) the father of her children? Is this the sort of man you want to look after the spiritual well-being of an entire flock of people (which does not really look good for the Episcopalians)?

Posted by K.C.Thomas on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 12:02 PM (EDT):

Priests like Cutie may not have strong foundation in faith. If it is there, one will try to repent and set right things , instead of running away from Church and faith which they loved for long

1. In my long experience with “conversions,” when Protestants become Catholics, it is for doctrinal reasons; when Catholics become Protestants, it is for MORAL (or immoral) reasons, that is, an unwillingness or “inability” to accept Catholic morality (birth control, same-sex activity, abortion, divorce/remarriage).

2. I would add a caution to Jimmy Akin’s original post: Celibacy is not “just a discipline.” It is an evangelical way of life and almost an integral part of Catholic priesthood, with admitted exceptions (that prove the rule). This point was underscored by the newly appointed prefect of the Congregation of the Clergy, Cardinal Mauro Piacenza. Just as Cardinal Newman warned that no one would give his life for an opinion, no right-minded person would live his life for “a discipline.”

Posted by gravey on Saturday, Jan, 1, 2011 6:40 AM (EDT):

Freddy, Did you forget to take your medication again? By the way, get off the computer…your mom’s calling you…dinner’s ready!

Posted by Pastor Brad on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 11:22 PM (EDT):

To all,

I would not want this former Roman priest in my denomination. I am gravely concerned with Father Cutié‘s ethics and morals regardless of what Roman regulations he may have broken. It’s okay with me that he has disagreements over Roman doctrine, polity and practice. A guy or gal could still be a good minister, but not so good Catholic priest. I do have a problem that he carried on with a gal while still a Roman Catholic priest living a double life, lying until he got caguht. I believe this defect of character makes him bad news but it’s not my problem. The Episcopalian’s saw fit to make him one of their clergy and to give him a Church even when he’s a promise-breaker and once you do it it’s easy to do again. So it’s an issue of trust.

B.T.W., I want to apologize on behalf of the entire Protestant communion for the guy known as Freddy on here. He does not represent the views of most. I bet he got some of his views from Jack T. Crick Publications which publishes anti-Catholic Cartoon tracts like this one here

Pastor Brad
(a United Methodist Elder in Full Connection)

Posted by Sandra on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 9:00 PM (EDT):

There were several errors and scandals here, not the least is what woman wants a priest for a husband/mate that she would imperil her own soul? It is self-centeredness of the first order!

I lay as much of the problem on the the women that are “attracted to un-eligible men” as mates/partners. It is rampant in society at large and no sigma or societal chastisement occurs.

Very few men pursue an equally un-eligible female.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 8:55 PM (EDT):

Fr. J; You mentioned, “That will not mean his marriage is automatically valid though, especially since he was not married in the Church. He would have to seek convalidation, a rather doubtful possibility.” People seem to forget there are two people in this so called “marriage” and have only been looking at one of them and his status. She may already be married. I found the following online.

“35-year-old Ruhama Buni Canellis was reported to be a mother of two children, a 5-year-old and 15-year-old and runs a beauty therapist business, Miami media said.

Records show that Ruhama Canellis was once married to a David Hope Norton in Florida in 1994 but divorced him two years later. The couple had just one child. It is not known who the father of the 5-year-old child is, rumours suggest Alberto Cutie may indeed be the Father of Ruhama Canellis’s child.”

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 8:52 PM (EDT):

I’d like to take a moment from our discussions to ask everyone to pray for our brothers and sisters in Missouri. Severe storms caused millions of dollars of damage to businesses and homes in suburban St. Louis (whole neighborhoods look like the aftermath of Katrina and some businesses in a busy strip mall are apparently gone. Saint Paul’s Catholic Church in Pacific Missouri suffered extreme damage and I do not know if the priest was hurt. I have been in touch with members of my community and everyone is fine.

I think the article summed it up rather well. Canonically speaking he will probably be dismissed from the clerical state. That is no doubt in the works. That will not mean his marriage is automatically valid though, especially since he was not married in the Church. He would have to seek convalidation, a rather doubtful possibility. He would have a tough case to make in showing that he lacked full consent of the will and full knowledge and therefore objectively he is in serious sin for leaving the Church. That is the kind of sin that leads to hell.

On the personal side. He knew when he was ordained what the score was. If he can’t live it he should have left. Fleeing to the ECUSA was a mercenary act. He needed to make a living and thought that would be the best way. What profit a man if he gains the whole world and loses his soul? Someone said that once. The ECUSA must be desperate to take a guy like that so quickly without any real review. Let us pray for this poor priest, he needs it.

Btw freddy, I am one of those evangelical Protestants who became Catholic. The Bible and the Fathers led me there.

Posted by matthew andersen on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 7:47 PM (EDT):

Sorry I was just being rude, my bad.

Posted by Matthew Andersen on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 7:15 PM (EDT):

Freddy,
What I am saying is that you make me want to stay Catholic. Your throwing out all of these other topics that have nothing to do with what we are talking about. How are we as Catholics suppose to be better Christians when we can’t talk about the topic at hand. Thanks to you and your rude comments alot of us are getting sidetracked and not even talking about what Fr. Cutie did. I don’t think you have made one rational comment. I would have a hard time being around you if I ever met you, you seem very bitter. That is why I want to stay Catholic, I have not once been taught, or even read to insult people. Good luck with it, have a nice day.

Posted by John F. Kennedy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 6:47 PM (EDT):

B. McClean; please use the correct term. As Jimmy noted in his article, “celibacy” is the state of not being married. The Church always assumes that if you are celibate you are also continent, that is not having sexual relations.

From the article, “Fr. Cutie had freely assumed the obligation to remain celibate (unmarried) and thus, via the virtue of chastity (behaving in a sexually appropriate manner) to remain continent (not have sex).”

Society in general seems to have purposely decided that they are the same thing but are not.

Posted by Arrowsmith1994 on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:38 PM (EDT):

Christ completes the incomplete, He perfects what is imperfect.

Posted by Thomas Wehner on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:32 PM (EDT):

Freddy: Please stick to the subject matter and refrain from attempting to hijack the thread. The Register regularly bans trolls that seek to do what you’re doing, adding nothing to the conversation. Please change your approach or you will be banned.

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:21 PM (EDT):

John Henry Newman also said that 75% of Catholic worship has a pagan origin.

Posted by Arrowsmith1994 on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:14 PM (EDT):

“To be deep in history is to cease to be Protestant.”—-John Henry Newman

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:09 PM (EDT):

Matthew Andersen,
Let us take a look at your logic. You claim that by exposing RCC you should remain Catholic. I have Muslim friends who use a similar argument. They say that because I attack Islam it must be true. This type of feeble thinking is why Catholics remain in their Constantine created state religion.

As I have said, I have YET to meet a Catholic who is an intellectual juggernaut. Jimmy is helping my cause way more by bring up scandal upon scandal. The RCC is like a 21st century soap opera and who-dunnit all rolled into one.

Posted by Brenda on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 2:54 PM (EDT):

I would like to comment on what B.McClean said about the present day clerical state. He/she is very close to accuracy. It is a sad fact indeed that the priesthood and religious life is riddled with clerical insubordination (rebellion), lack of purity, and behind the scenes sinful lifestyles. Not all, but certainly many. Jimmy Akin is doing a good job of demonstrating what the ideal should be, but the reality is that things are quite different. The ideals are great things to strive for as long as we realize that in this era, very few are being lived out. This is one of the reasons, if not THE reason, an entire generation has been poorly catechized. And I do agree with him or her, that priests unfortunately are engaged in every modern nightmare from massive administrative duties to the neglect of spiritual duties, to homosexual affairs and/or crimes. That is why I advocate for a dual path priesthood, for celibates and for married. Celibacy can have no meaning if it is not freely chosen, and conversely a married priest should not invalidate something so special as the Holy Eucharist.

Posted by frnickwinker on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 2:43 PM (EDT):

Actually, because he is still bound by celibacy the sin of Fr. Cutie and his wife is not merely fornication or adultery, but rather sacrilege as it is first of all violation of his promise to God.

Posted by Brenda on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 2:40 PM (EDT):

I agree with the poster about filtering the contents of responses. If non-Catholics and anti-Catholics can stick to the subject at hand—celibacy in the Catholic priesthood—fine, they can post. But to come here to denigrate the Basis for Catholicism, should be unacceptable. If they hate Catholicism so much, let them be one of the many that starts their own blog. That way they can get their jollies by circling the wagons ... and never arriving at the Truth in the process.

Posted by Matthew Andersen on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 2:37 PM (EDT):

Freddy,
Why are you so full of hate? I am a catholic and the way that you are commenting makes me think that I should be a catholic. I don’t even know what you are trying to say, are we suppose to hate everything? I really don’t get it are you trying to help Catholics because you really are not. There will always be problems with the people of the Catholic church but there will never be anything wrong with what Jesus’ Church.

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:53 PM (EDT):

Theresa,
To be a student of Genuine history is to be Protestant. To be a student of revisionist history courtesy of Catholic Answers is to be Catholic.

Posted by SteveV on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:45 PM (EDT):

Well, at least one Episcopal parish will have the true body and blood of Christ to offer at communion.

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:28 PM (EDT):

Theresa,
The other fact is that Catholics typically cherry pick quotes from the Church fathers by Jurgens. Well if one takes things out of context one can prove anything. Read entire works of church fathers and you realize that they were NOT Catholic. This is a lot of work to do, but I encourage you to read books by Pelikan, Frend, and Schaff and you will see the fiction and the resulting blinder created by the RCC fall from your eyes.

Posted by Pete on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:12 PM (EDT):

What do I think? I think Mr. Frade and Mr. Soto (the “bishops” involved) have got just as big an issue on their hands as excommunicated Cutie does.

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:07 PM (EDT):

MMOCONNER,
Your like most of my Catholic friends. You rather bury your head in the sand than hear the truth. My Catholic friends faith is so weak that they cling by thread to their false religion hoping it will provide eternal salvation. I remind them that Christ rejects all those who practice idolatry. I tell them God will judge with Divine retribution all those who bow before the Eucharist. Tell me how can the glorified body of Christ end up looking like a wafer. Maybe your glorified body will also be a wafer without arms, legs, brains, or a mouth to speak. If this is the glorified body than pagans have a right to mock Catholicism.

Posted by B. McClean on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:01 PM (EDT):

Cutie’s priesthood did not exist in some idealized abstract state. That is how most of you are discussing it.

Perhaps he did the wrong thing - perhaps he did several wrong things. Most of us do - every day.

But the thing that makes the discussion so pointless here is the abstraction from the concrete.

The bottom line - and I don’t know if Cutie will touch on this in his book or not but this is it - is that for the most part “celibacy” in the modern Church is a joke. Homosexual priests carry on their relationships with no ramifications until they are caught - embezzling usually - not living with a lover. The much-vaunted “availability” that celibacy supposedly produces is a lie - how many blog discussions have taken place over the fact that we can’t get priests to visit us in the hospital anymore or their refusal to take phone calls or give assistance after office hours? How many blog posts have been written about priests accumulating property - building up power - and building up their own kingdoms as they live in their own little bubble where it’s 1972 and they don’t have to pay one lick of attention to what the Pope says?

But now it’s all - “Oh - priests are so AVAILABLE to us because they’re CELIBATE.”

Rot.

I don’t know Cutie but I know people who do. No one ever claimed he was a saint. I think it’s pretty clear he had an ego - an ego that was stoked by his media fame as well as the persistent compulsion of Catholics to put their priests on pedestals - much in evidence in this discussion thread. I don’t know what happened. But since Jimmy has devoted thousands of words to speculating on the man’s private life I’ll have a go at it too: He got tired of the hypocricy - a clerical culture in which priests are allowed to do anything they damn well please except have a normal sacramental relationship with a woman. Men - property- money-power. It’s all okay. But women? Begone!

I wish he hadn’t left the RC Church. His embrace of its non-Christian non-apostolic teachings shows that he wasn’t the defender of the faith he presesnted himself to be. But psychologically and spiritually it’s not hard to see where he got to be where he ended up given the rot of clerical culture particularly in south Florida and the lack of real challenging support from a grounded spiritual director and Father.

Posted by MMOCONNOR on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:00 PM (EDT):

It is such a shame when the comments become infested with crackpot rants. I am all for free speech but, after all, this is a Catholic site. Why do we have to put up with comments from people who hate our Church? Why can’t this be a place where Catholics discuss Catholic news and Catholic opinion? There are thousands of other places where non-Catholics and anti-Catholics can say whatever they want. I really wish that 1) there would be something in the comment instructions explaining that the comment feature is offered to Catholics only and 2) these comments would be moderated more heavily to remove hateful nonsense and off-topic rants about homosexuality, abuse, etc…

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 12:57 PM (EDT):

Calvin said to read the church fathers is to prove Protestantism. I have read much of the church fathers and they are more Protestant than Catholic. Augustine is way more Protestant than Catholic. Jesus called the Pharisees a ‘brood of vipers’ which is a major insult. Is Jesus unchristian? I am telling people to wake up an realize that they are in a pagan, homosexual infested, treacherous, wafer god worshipping, false christ practicing church. There is no way to sugar coat the truth.

BTW, for every 1 Protestant who becomes Catholic, I can find 10 Catholics who become Evangelical Protestant.

Posted by THERESE60640 on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 12:50 PM (EDT):

Freddy, your very unchristian nastiness hides any small validity your arguments MIGHT have. You’ve got real issues. It’s my guess that you are afraid to really dig deeper and look at the writings of the early church fathers because it might lead you to the same place it has lead so many Christians who sincerely sought truth - to the Catholic Church.

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 11:23 AM (EDT):

Eugenia,
Thanks for correcting my English. English is not my native language. Hey, I always appreciate it when I learn something.

The fact is that most mainline Protestant churches are apostate. The true believers have left these institutions years ago and are now members of Evangelical churches. So when Father Grange says he is involved in Ecumenism, he is involved with dead Protestant churches completely rejected by Evangelicals. Thus birds of a feather flock together. Apostate Catholicism seeks communion with Apostate Protestants. That is a recipe for Eternal Damnation.
As I have stated before Judaism and Early Christianity are non-Sacramental. All pagan religions are sacramental. Thus Christianity +paganism + Ministerial Priesthood + Aristoleanism = Catholicism.

Similarly: Judaism + pagan Babylonianism = Samaritan religion.

So Catholics are in an apostate religion similar to the apostate religion of the Samaritans. Fact Catholics have forged many documents, such as Donation of Constantine, Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, and many others just to advance the fallacy of the Papacy. I can assure you Father Grange knows this but he will cover this up to keep the sheep in the dark. Thus I claim the Catholic church is just a holding cell for those who are destined to Hell.

Posted by Eugenia on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 5:46 AM (EDT):

@Freddie, it’s “milquetoast,” not “milk toast.” That alone tells me that you probably don’t know all the Greek you claim to. Meanwhile, I’ll pray for your conversion to the fullness of faith found only in the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic church. :)

And let’s place Cutie’s responsibility on him, not his bishops and not even on the woman who pursued him. It was he who should have known better yet chose to abandon his vows.

Posted by Brenda on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:41 AM (EDT):

Maureen, the priesthood is MORE than a contract. It is a Calling, or not. As a young woman, I seriously considered becoming a nun. That was in the 1970s. I was privileged to spend a lot of time around religious and diocesan priests, and nuns. Whilst decerning myself, I am quite familiar with the contemplations of those considering religious life. When you are called, IF you are called, as the Bible states, you are ‘equipped’. Being equipped for celibacy is unlike any other sacramental state, in my opinion. I don’t even think you can put it on par with marriage. With marriage you have another human being with which to share your life, your ups and downs. Sometimes, priests have this opportunity among brother priests, and most of the time diocesan priests do not. They particularly do not in this modern day and age.

Celibacy is a church discipline, it is not dogma or doctrine, as Father George has already taught us. Marriage, until death do us part, is doctrine. Let’s not confuse the two. Also, Saint Paul makes no statement about the marriage state, saying you should be married, but if you can’t, don’t. The reason I appealed to future Church discussions as temporary states that are continually renewed every 3 years, is that it gives every priest a chance to remember and renew his calling to Christ and His Church, and yet, if he cannot abide, he will not “burn with lust” but will be given an opportunity to marry. I thought it to be more in keeping with what Saint Paul suggested. Just my opinion though, we all have one.

Posted by ECDODGE on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:34 AM (EDT):

I’d like to second Dr. Ramirez’ post. Really, what we are dealing with as Christians is a misunderstanding of the meaning of sexuality, or, really, the sacramental purpose of the body, and, if we’re being honest, a loss of faith. After all, if we *really* believed that Heaven (or *shudder* Hell) awaits, we’d not be so quick about breaking our vows. God willing, we can echo the Centurion and increase in faith. Too, one hopes that John Paul II’s theology of the body continues to help us rediscover and live the meaning of the body.

Posted by Maureen on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:19 AM (EDT):

Okay, Brenda. And while we’re at it, we’ll make marriage a vow that has to be renewed every three years. After all, marriage is a gift, and not everybody is cut out for it. Let’s make parenthood a renewable state, and let people dump all their annoying teenagers on the street if they don’t feel up to raising ‘em anymore. And let’s make that true of all contracts and extend the right to legal persons, so the bank or the previous owners of your house and car can have takebacks every three years. Without giving back your money, of course. Contractbreaking is a natural state, right?

You seem to assume that men, or at least celibate men, have no honor and cannot be expected to keep promises or contracts. I assume that humans have free will and can make choices and promises that last their whole lives long.

Posted by Father Robert George on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 3:12 AM (EDT):

@ Freddy,

I do not approve of, nor did I participate in the cover up of any sexual abuse of minors. I furthermore did not approve of, our hide, anyone participating in illicit and immoral homosexual behavior.

I really doubt you would win in any debate on the Greek. I studied the Greek under Fredrick W. Danker (a scholarly Lutheran, perhaps the foremost expert on Koine Greek—not Roman Catholic) who was the primary editor of Walter Bauer’s A GREEK ENGLISH LEXICON OF THE NEW TESTAMENT AND OTHER EARLY CHRISTIAN LITERATURE along with F.W. Ginrich. Frederick W. Danker Professor Emeritus of New Testament, Lutheran School of Theology, Chicago, is an internationally recognized scholar who has published in the areas of biblical interpretation, Hellenistic language and culture, linguistics, and archaeology.

My advanced, non seminary, degrees are from both Catholic and NON-CATHOLIC universities and I have served on the faculties of both Catholic and non-Catholic academic institutions. I have been active in the ecumenical movement for years, but of course those dealings are with mainline Protestants not the so-called “American evangelical movement”, with its literalistic interpretation and rejection of true mainstream—hence, correct—biblical scholarship. So believe what you will about Catholics, we’re not going to change your mind no matter what we say or do. You’re here to bait people, I’m sure, and I almost ignored you, which is what I’m going to do from this point forth—and I advise others to do the same, for your comments are neither constructive nor conducive to open conversation.

In Christ,
Father Robert George

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 2:01 AM (EDT):

Father Robert Grange,

Evangelical Protestants have soundly refuted the superstition and fiction of hagiography, phoney apparitions, Marian dogma, Catholic Sacraments, Papacy, and the deliberate mistranslations of Jerome’s Vulgate. However Priests as yourself are too busy covering up homosexual scandals, feeding the sheep milk toast messages, and complaining that no one likes Catholics. Look Catholics have 1700 years of treachery. The true Christians had to underground after Constantine made Catholicism a state religion.

Posted by Brenda on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:51 AM (EDT):

There are several things here that need to be looked at carefully. One, I agree with the poster who said, “Where were his superiors?” That is very important. Were they asleep at the switch, or worse yet, did they not really care? It seems to me, after reading about the sex abuse scandals, the entire priestly formation, supervision and “vision” is pretty much off course according to what canonical law says it should be. If the root is rotten, how can we expect good fruit.

Second, Saint Paul very clearly says in the New Testament that it is better not to marry, but if you cannot be like me (celibate) it is better to marry than to burn with lust.

The reason I bring that particular passage up is to emphasize that celibacy IS a gift, not all are called to celibacy. That means, try as they might, it goes against what they have been provided for.

So how to solve the problem? I believe the Church should seriously consider a way for priests to serve as celibates in an ongoing temporary status—one that must be renewed say every three years or so. Providing priests with a continual option to “opt out” of celibacy, but not the priesthood—- I think would make choosing celibacy even more of a “return gift” to God…

Posted by freddy on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:48 AM (EDT):

Father Robert Grange,

I see that you refuse to address the homosexual priesthood issue. Yep, further confirmation of a homosexual infested institution.
I would love to debate you in Greek and can assure you that I would win the argument.

Posted by Dr Ray Ramirez on Friday, Dec, 31, 2010 1:18 AM (EDT):

The options for this priest are the same options that all validly sacramental married men are given when found out of their out of wedlock sensual advances to woman not his wife:

a) Just say no - just as a priest should do
b) seek forgiveness for falling - and if truly repentant - try to repair is family life - just as a priest would have to do with his flock to whom he is the spiritual father
c) see if he has grounds for a declaration of nullity

What Fr Cuti’e did was what too many Catholics do who civilly divorce, then ‘remarry’ in a different Christian community.

We should pray for him

Posted by B. McClean on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 9:50 PM (EDT):

Where were Cutie’s superiors?

Catch a clue people.

Cutie’s superiors and older peers - that is those on the pastor/monsignor level - are probably mostly homosexual and therefore either indifferent to a vibrant normal heterosexual interloper in their midst or hostile to him. They were probably thrilled when Cutie left. If you were following the story at the time you will recall Favolora’s curious inaction. Repeat: a vibrant normal heterosexual priest is a threat to the homosexual clique.

Posted by Father Robert George on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 9:21 PM (EDT):

@ Freddy,

I refuse to go into a lesson in Koine Greek here and I really don’t care one whit about whether you agree with me or not, but Scripture and other early Christian sources speak of Bishops, Presbyters, elders, deacons, deaconesses not just elders and deacons—that statement is simply not faithful to the ancient texts as anyone trained in the language will note. Many of these positions, in the early Christianity, held positions and authority similar to Priests in the Catholic communion or Pastors / ministers in the Protestant communion.

As with several of your statements in the other blog section about Father Cutie, your comments simply do not square with modern Biblical scholarship practiced by Protestants or Catholics.

Vatican Council II, by the way, does affirm the concept of The Priesthood of all believers, which has been such a big part of Lutheranism and other Protestant sects.

Transubstantiation—that the bread and wine in Roman Catholic communion - is literally turned into the Body and blood of Jesus while only the appearance of bread and wine remain—is a doctrine of Catholicism that stems from the ancient Christian community’s reflection and interpretation of Scripture based on Christ’s words at the last summer.

Martin Luther, founder of the Protestant reformation, wrote this about Holy Communion in his famous “Small Cathecism”, which I’ve been told is studied by every Lutheran child.

VI. The Sacrament of the Altar

As the head of the family should teach it in a simple way to his household.

What is the Sacrament of the Altar?

It is the true body and blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, under the bread and wine, for us Christians to eat and to drink, instituted by Christ Himself.

Where is this written?

The holy Evangelists, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and St. Paul, write thus:

Our Lord Jesus Christ, the same night in which He was betrayed, took bread: and when He had given thanks, He brake it, and gave it to His disciples, and said, Take, eat; this is My body, which is given for you. This do in remembrance of Me.

After the same manner also He took the cup, when He had supped, gave thanks, and gave it to them, saying, Take, drink ye all of it. This cup is the new testament in My blood, which is shed for you for the remission of sins. This do ye, as oft as ye drink it, in remembrance of Me.

What is the benefit of such eating and drinking?

That is shown us in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins; namely, that in the Sacrament forgiveness of sins, life, and salvation are given us through these words. For where there is forgiveness of sins, there is also life and salvation.

How can bodily eating and drinking do such great things?

It is not the eating and drinking, indeed, that does them, but the words which stand here, namely: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins. Which words are, beside the bodily eating and drinking, as the chief thing in the Sacrament; and he that believes these words has what they say and express, namely, the forgiveness of sins.

Who, then, receives such Sacrament worthily?

Fasting and bodily preparation is, indeed, a fine outward training; but he is truly worthy and well prepared who has faith in these words: Given, and shed for you, for the remission of sins.

But he that does not believe these words, or doubts, is unworthy and unfit; for the words For you require altogether believing hearts.

This appears to be consubstantiation, but affirms Real Presence of Christ in the Sacrament.

Father Robert George

Posted by Fr. Adam Egan on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 9:21 PM (EDT):

It is the Episcopal Church! Not the Episcopalian Church. One is an Episcopalian, but a member of the Episcopal Church. Thank you and God Bless!

Posted by Chapo on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 8:00 PM (EDT):

@freddy I think you’re the only confused one, haas.

Posted by Charles on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 6:40 PM (EDT):

We need not over-indulge almost judgmentally on the ‘misfortunes’, if at all they are, of Fr. Cutie et all. I dont think God is as mad as we are; only HE understands them. We almost pretend to know they are destined for hell. As a married man I had a kid before getting married and I dont feel soooo bad about it now that she is a grown up and ooh so beautiful. I took responsibility and I believe thats the best I could humanly do. Why cant the church stand the sight of a weak human nature? Lets sober up and stop dethroning God from the judgement seat. Nice article though, Jimmy.

Posted by ATHOMEMAMA.CJ on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 5:01 PM (EDT):

@freddy: “These scandals in the Catholic church only reinforce the fact that God is feed up with the Catholic church.”

God brings good out of evil, but that good does not justify the evil. To a certain extent, we can not explain God’s plan until it is fully revealed.

As a practical matter, thank God for all good, including this child, and avoid all evil. God will explain it in the end.

Posted by Amy on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 3:55 PM (EDT):

I am wondering about his daughter. She is God’s creation, correct? Everyone is born for a purpose, correct? If her parents hadn’t sinned, she wouldn’t exist, yet a human life can never be considered a “mistake.” Her existence doesn’t justify her parents’ sin, yet the sin produced her life. How would one explain this to the child?

Posted by Elisa on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 3:20 PM (EDT):

As the first poster mentioned, where were his superiors including his bishop? This could’ve been avoided. If all the attention was overwhelming and a distraction, surely his bishop is within his rights to pull Fr. Cutie from active and public ministry until it was judged whether or not he could return.

I hope this sends a message to our bishops—“make the rounds” with regular priests within the diocese and regularly stay in touch with them.

The Episcopal Church may say he’s fine for ministry…but not with the catholic church.

Posted by seraph on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 2:41 PM (EDT):

And of course, the option he pursued, he married his girlfriend and was received as a priest in The Episcopal Church!

He seems happy, has a wife, a growing ministry, celebrates the Eucharist, and now is the father of a beautiful baby girl! Of all the options, so far this seems the most attractive one….time will tell if it was right for him.

One thing is for sure; celibacy is a gift and not for all! It is quite unreasonable to expect it of all men called by God to the priesthood.

Posted by THERESE60640 on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 1:40 PM (EDT):

Wow, Dave!! I love your clarity! I wish I’d thought of it. You got it EXACTLY right. Unfortunately, a protestant intent on his/her protesting, isn’t open to such a clear perspective.

Posted by Dave on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 12:16 PM (EDT):

@freddy - so, Jesus set up a Protestant-style church which completely disappeared within a generation. The pagans then set up a Catholic-style church which survived for two thousand years.

Boy, Jesus kind of dropped the ball on that one.

Posted by Rob on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 12:00 PM (EDT):

Fr. Cutie could have attempted laicization. There is no assurance that this will go through. Pope John Paul II was very stingy in letting men out of the priesthood. The Church didn’t even laicize men who repeatedly raped children.
I’d also question would we not also be shunning Fr. Cutie if he were to have chosen laicization. Would we laud him for stepping out of a commitment he couldn’t handle or would talk about another “failed” vocation?

@Adriano
The Church doesn’t allow men in major orders to contract a marriage. A priest can’t “revert” to being a deacon and marry. For a celibate man, once the bishops hands are on you, you’re to be celibate for the rest of your life (unless laicized).

@Everyone, our priests and bishops need our constant prayers from ALL the evil at work each day. More so than us as Satan would love nothing more to have another fallen priest.

@adriano, giving priests the option of being deacons to allow them to break their vows and become married ..... REALLY?!! Come on, Just how many young men entering priesthood would be thinking, if this doesnt work, I will become a deacon. I could write an entire article as to why this isnt a good idea .... There is Black and there is White. There is NO Gray

Posted by freddy on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 11:20 AM (EDT):

BTW, Jimmy is doing a great job as a muckraker. He is doing a great service in exposing these scandal and helping Protestants capture more confused Catholics. So Jimmy keep up the good work.

Posted by freddy on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 11:18 AM (EDT):

The New Testament only speaks of the Priesthood of all believers. The Catholic priesthood is an example of early novel doctrine. The fact is the Bible commands the church to be run by elders and deacons NOT priests and deacons. Therefore ALL Catholics should leave the Catholic church because submitting to a priest is a SIN. The priesthood gained tractioned as people combined pagan practices with Christianity. One of these pagan practices is Transubstantiation.

These scandals in the Catholic church only reinforce the fact that God is feed up with the Catholic church.

Posted by adriano on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 10:55 AM (EDT):

If a good priest change of vocation and idea,and want to marry and to have a family?
One suggestion…
In the future ,the Church could give another option ,to let these priests become married permanent deacons…

Posted by Nick on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 6:44 AM (EDT):

Thanks Jimmy!

Posted by R, Perkins on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 4:53 AM (EDT):

Women who chase priests are the modern day Eve!

Posted by Leticia Velasquez on Thursday, Dec, 30, 2010 4:27 AM (EDT):

As with the case of Fr Francis Mary Stone of EWTN, the burning question arises; where were their superiors? Who was watching these attractive, charismatic, high profile priests to protect them from the constant barrage of women who throw themselves at them? Fr Ken Roberts, Fr John Bertolucci, the list goes on. It is s common problem, yet we don’t deal with it. Someone needed to take Fr Cutie aside and warn him of all the dangers to which he was subjecting his immortal soul. Surely someone close to him saw things getting out of hand. Why didn’t they love him enough to warn him?
The priest who presided at my wedding was attractive and had a line of women waiting to speak to him after each Mass.The pastor never intervened. He is now laicized and married, but no one who knew him is surprised. We all saw it coming. His once vibrant Catholic faith is weak. It breaks my heart.
Come on, folks, they are only human, and the Church needs to offer some leadership in this issue. AND women need to respect the priesthood and back off.

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won't publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Jimmy was born in Texas, grew up nominally Protestant, but at age 20 experienced a profound conversion to Christ. Planning on becoming a Protestant pastor or seminary professor, he started an intensive study of the Bible. But the more he immersed himself in Scripture the more he found to support the Catholic faith. Eventually, he entered the Catholic Church. His conversion story, “A Triumph and a Tragedy,” is published in Surprised by Truth. Besides being an author, Jimmy is the Senior Apologist at Catholic Answers, a contributing editor to Catholic Answers Magazine, and a weekly guest on “Catholic Answers Live.”